Singh v. Senate of Canada

Date: 20210107

File: 466-SC-411

Citation: 2021 FPSLREB 2

Federal Public Sector

Labour Relations and

Before a panel of the

Federal Public Sector

Labour Relations and

Employment Board

Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and

Staff Relations Act

BETWEEN

DARSHAN SINGH

Grievor

and

SENATE OF CANADA

Respondent

Indexed as

Singh v. Senate of Canada

In the matter of a grievance referred to adjudication under section 63 of the

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Before:

Linda Gobeil, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and

Employment Board

For the Grievor:

Paul Champ and Bijon Roy, counsel

For the Respondent:

George G. Vuicic and Jason Mercier, counsel

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario,

February 3 to 7, 10 to 12, and 14 and March 2, 4, and 5, 2020.

Reasons for Decision

Page: 1 of 150

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. Individual grievance referred to adjudication

Darshan Singh is a member of a visible minority group. In 2015, he was an

executive in his position as the director of the Senate of Canada’s (“the Senate”)

Human Resources Directorate. On December 3, 2015, the Senate informed him that his

employment had been terminated. He alleged that the Senate acted unfairly and that it

discriminated against him on the basis of his race. The letter of termination reads

as follows:

December 2, 2015

Mr. Darshan Singh

Edifice Chambers, 13^thfloor

BY HAND

Darshan,

I regret to inform you that the Senate of Canada has decided to

terminate your employment, effective today.

The reason for this decision is the breakdown in the confidence

and trust which are essential to the viability of your employment

relationship. The Senate’s loss of your confidence and trust in you

are primarily the result of your attitude and behavior towards the

Chief Corporate Services Officer, to whom you have reported since

January 2015.

Among other actions, you have made serious allegations of

misconduct by your superior, including that she mislead Senators.

You have accused the CCSO of acting towards you based on

improper motives, and of “micro-managing” your performance.

You have even gone as far as to attack the CCSO’s competence in

matters under her authority, in the presence of the CCSO and

other members of the Executive Committee.

The Senate considers that you attitude and behavior reflect and

inability or unwillingness to accept the supervisory authority of the

CCSO. Although the problem has been highlighted recently by

your initiative in seeking to have the HR Directorate removed from

the CCSO’s authority, the Senate’s review has revealed that the

issues relating to your attitude and behavior have been long-

standing. Indeed, it appears that the problems began around the

time the CCSO’ investigation into the establishment of your terms

and conditions of employment with the Senate, which ultimately

led to discipline being imposed upon you.

In the face of your attitude and behavior towards you superior, the

Senate simply cannot maintain trust and confidence in you, and

can no longer continue your employment.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 2 of 150

In anticipation of the possibility that you may believe or claim that

the termination of your employment was in response to concerns

of discrimination that you recently expressed regarding the CCSO,

I assure you that it is not the case. The Senate’s decision is the

result of an assessment of the entire history of your behavior and

attitude since the spring of 2015, and of the cumulative effect of

your actions.

While the Senate’s decision is based on the above reasons, the

Senate has decided not to rely on these reasons as cause for the

termination of your employment. Consequently, in consideration of

the termination of your employment without cause, the Senate is

prepared to provide you with the following termination benefits,

subject to signature of mutually agreeable minutes of settlement

and release:

. pay in lieu of notice of termination, equivalent to 3 months’

salary, less deduction required by law;

. Outplacement counselling services, for a period of 3 months; and

. a letter of reference, to assist you in finding alternate

employment.

Please obtain whatever professional advice you believe necessary,

and advise me by December 16, 2015 whether you accept the

Senate’s offer, by returning to my attention a copy of this letter

duly signed below. I regret that this decision has become necessary,

and wish you the best in your future endeavours.

Charles Robert

Clerk of the Senate and the Parliaments.

…

[Sic throughout]

On December 17, 2015, pursuant to s. 62 of the Parliamentary Employment and

Staff Relations Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 33 (2nd Supp.); PESRA) Mr. Singh filed a grievance

with the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (as it was then known)

against the Senate’s decision to terminate his employment. The grievance reads as

follows (Exhibit G-1, tab 5):

I grieve the without-cause termination of my employment on

December 2, 2015 as well as other actions leading to my dismissal,

as being unlawful as well as discriminatory, contrary to sections 7,

10 and 14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Specifically I raised

my exclusion of meetings, certain staffing actions, and being

subjected to heightened or additional scrutiny as adverse

differential treatment on the grounds of race, colour, national or

ethnic origin, as I was the only director to be treated in this

manner and the first visible minority senior executive in the

Senate. The employer failed to investigate my allegations of

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 3 of 150

discrimination, and instead terminated my employment shortly

thereafter.

In his grievance, Mr. Singh asked for the following as the remedy:

1) that he be reinstated in his position, retroactive to the termination date;

2) that he be made whole;

3) that he receive compensation of $40 000 under s. 53 of the Canadian Human

Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6; CHRA); and

4) that he receive interest on being made whole and on the compensation under

the CHRA.

Later, Mr. Singh also argued that after the termination of his employment, the

Senate disclosed information or did not take the necessary steps to correct false

information and rumours about him. Therefore, he seeks additional damages for loss

of reputation, mental distress, and harm to his dignity, which will be detailed later in

this decision.

On June 19, 2017, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the

Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to

provide for certain other measures (S.C. 2017, c. 9), received Royal Assent, changing the

name of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board and the title of the

Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act (S.C. 2013, c. 40, s. 365) to,

respectively, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the

Board”) and the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.

Originally, this matter was scheduled for a hearing in 2017 before the

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”). The

original hearing ended in December 2017. Sadly, the Board member assigned to the

case passed away in May 2019, before a decision was issued. In July 2019, with the

parties’ agreement, a de novo hearing was scheduled for the two first weeks of

February and the first week of March 2020.

The hearing took 12 days. The parties agreed that Mr. Singh would give evidence

first. Witnesses were excluded.

Mr. Singh testified at length. So did the Senate’s first witness, Nicole Proulx, who

as of the termination of Mr. Singh’s employment was the Senate’s chief corporate

services officer and Mr. Singh’s immediate supervisor. Jules Pleau; Michel Patrice,

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 4 of 150

Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel; and Senator Leo Housakos also testified for the

Senate. All witnesses were rigorously cross-examined.

Since the alleged unfair treatment and discrimination of Mr. Singh took place

in different situations, I tried to cover all of them extensively, as reported by the

witnesses, keeping in mind that while each situation might not prove discrimination on

its own, the accumulation of questionable behaviours certainly could demonstrate a

pattern of discriminatory practices. I also reported the facts in the order in which the

witnesses presented them, which is not necessarily the chronological order.

II. Opening statements

For Mr. Singh

Mr. Singh is a member of a visible minority group. As of the termination of his

employment, he occupied a position classified SEG-02 under the Senate’s classification

system, which is equivalent to the EX-02 classification in the public service.

In December 2015, the Senate decided to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment

only one week after he raised concerns to Ms. Proulx about her actions. Mr. Singh

maintained that in that decision, the Senate acted in bad faith and discriminated

against him, contrary to ss. 7, 10, and 14 of the CHRA. Sections 7, 10, and 14.1 of the

CHRA read as follows:

7 It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,

(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in

relation to an employee,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

…

10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee

organization or employer organization

(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or

(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral,

hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any

other matter relating to employment or prospective

employment,

that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of

individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited

ground of discrimination.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 5 of 150

…

14.1 It is a discriminatory practice for a person against whom a

complaint has been filed under Part III, or any person acting on

their behalf, to retaliate or threaten retaliation against the

individual who filed the complaint or the alleged victim.

Mr. Singh also pointed out that after the termination of his employment, by

its behaviour, the Senate contributed to many unfounded rumours and speculation

being raised in the media about him, which seriously harmed his personal and

professional reputations.

Mr. Singh insisted that he was the Senate’s first hire of a member of a visible

minority group at the executive level and that as of the hearing, he remained the

only one.

Mr. Singh stated that the evidence would show that he was a rising star

who reached the executive cadre before age 40. Unfortunately, the unfair and

discriminatory actions of the Senate’s representatives put an end to his aspirations

after he complained about his supervisor’s discriminatory behaviour and was told that

the matter would be investigated. He indicated that no real investigation took place

and that instead, the Senate arbitrarily decided to terminate his employment.

Mr. Singh also stated that he was no longer disputing the employer’s right to

terminate employment without cause but nevertheless maintained that its decision was

plainly wrong and discriminatory and that it infringed ss. 7, 10, and 14 of the CHRA.

For the Senate

The Senate alleged that basically, this case is about an employee who did

not accept his supervisor’s authority. It stated that employees must respect their

supervisors. Mr. Singh had to accept Ms. Proulx’s authority and could not accuse her of

wrongdoing when she had not committed any. The Senate indicated that Mr. Singh’s

employment was terminated because he refused to recognize Ms. Proulx’s authority

and because he made unfounded accusations against her.

The Senate stated that Mr. Singh joined the Senate at the end of October 2013

as part of an Interchange Canada assignment. He reported to the Senate clerk,

Gary O’Brien. At that time, Mr. O’Brien’s organization was very flat. He had 12 direct

reports, including Charles Robert, Mr. Patrice, and Ms. Proulx, Chief Financial Officer

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 6 of 150

and Director of Finance and Procurement at that time, as well as Mr. Singh, Director of

Human Resources (Exhibit E-1, tab1).

At the end of 2014, the situation changed with the announcement of

Mr. O’Brien’s retirement. In 2015, the clerk’s role was assumed by an Executive

Committee comprising the chiefs of each of three sectors. Mr. Robert became Clerk of

the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments (Chief Legislative Services Officer), Mr. Patrice

became Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, and Ms. Proulx became Chief Corporate

Services Officer. Those three formed the Executive Committee. As a result, as of

February 2015, the Human Resources Directorate, with Mr. Singh as its director,

reported to Ms. Proulx (Exhibit E-1, tabs 1 and 2).

The Senate suggested that initially, Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx had a fine

relationship. But it started to deteriorate after he was appointed Director of Human

Resources for the Senate at the end of his Interchange Canada assignment.

The Senate indicated that an employee filed a grievance after a notice of intent

to appoint Mr. Singh as the director of human resources was filed and that Ms. Proulx

had to investigate the matter. While gathering the facts with respect to that grievance,

she found out that Mr. Singh had prepared his letter of offer as the director of human

resources and as such had breached the Senate’s rules and standards of conduct. He

was then disciplined for it via a letter of reprimand.

According to the Senate, while Ms. Proulx was prepared to give Mr. Singh

another chance, their relationship became more difficult. It maintained that Mr. Singh

started to undermine her. He disputed her authority on human-resources matters and

accused her of micromanaging him, even though she was simply exercising her

authority as the chief corporate services officer.

The Senate indicated that the evidence would show that Mr. O’Brien and

Ms. Proulx had different management styles in that Mr. O’Brien’s was more hands-off.

According to the Senate, Ms. Proulx wanted to be more involved than her

predecessor, which Mr. Singh simply did not accept. Ultimately, he emailed her on

November 24, 2015 (“the November 24 email”). In it, he claimed that he had suffered

racial discrimination because he was no longer invited to meetings of the Standing

Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (“the Standing

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 7 of 150

Committee”) and to those of its Steering Committee (“the Steering Committee”).

Among other things, he also claimed that Ms. Proulx had withheld information from

senators. The Senate insisted that those allegations were simply baseless, and that

Ms. Proulx had not even made some of the decisions at issue in the email.

The Senate stated that following the November 24 email, Mr. Robert and

Mr. Patrice met with Mr. Singh. The decision to terminate his employment was made

shortly after that by the three senators who formed the Steering Committee. Ms. Proulx

was not involved in that decision.

The Senate denied any discrimination and maintained that claims of it are not

enough. It also stated that this case is about not statistics but the Senate’s authority to

terminate Mr. Singh’s employment for his actions.

III. Summary of the evidence

A. For Mr. Singh

In his testimony, Mr. Singh referred to specific occasions on which he alleged

that Ms. Proulx acted unfairly and in a discriminatory manner toward him because of

his ethnic background. It is important to note from the outset that in the November 24

email, he singled her out for the alleged discriminatory acts and stated that he did not

feel that the other two Executive Committee members had treated him differently

(Exhibit G-1, tab 1, page 2).

Mr. Singh’s employment background and arrival at the Senate

Mr. Singh started his testimony by reviewing his professional accomplishments

before joining the Senate (Exhibit G-2, tab 1).

He explained that he fell in love with human resources after first being a

human-resources advisor with the Canada Revenue Agency and later as a staffing

advisor classified PE-05 with the Public Service Commission. Mr. Singh pointed out that

he had been involved in probably 300 staffing processes for executives. Later on, while

classified PE-06 with the former Canada Public Service Agency, he advised on the

staffing of assistant-deputy-minister positions classified EX-04 and EX-05. The client

was the deputy minister of a department, with whom he worked closely.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 8 of 150

In October 2009, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

approached him to become Manager of Resourcing Operations, still at the PE-06 group

and level. Mr. Singh pointed out that he was very pleased with that assignment since it

gave him more responsibilities, like in compensation and classification. He explained

that he was ambitious and that he “wanted to build on [his] CV”.

In 2011, Mr. Singh joined the Canada School of Public Service (“the School”),

where he became Director of Human Resources Strategies and Corporate Resourcing,

classified at the EX-01 group and level. He testified that he left the School after it went

through a major workforce adjustment exercise. He indicated that he then had to let

250 employees go and dealt directly with the School’s president. Mr. Singh testified

that at that point, he decided that it was time to leave.

In July 2013, he applied for an assignment at the Senate (Exhibit G-2, tab 1). He

pointed out that at that time, he thought that working for an employer outside the

public service’s core public administration, like the Senate, would be a good addition to

his CV. He added that when he joined the Senate, he held two degrees from the

University of Ottawa and had extensive human-resources experience.

Mr. Singh testified that he interviewed for the position of Director of Human

Resources at the Senate. The selection board comprised Marc Audcent, Law Clerk and

Parliamentary Counsel at that time; Ms. Proulx, Director of Finance for the Senate at

that time; and Jane Hardy, a consultant. Mr. Singh also had to undergo a day-long

competency-profile test that was administered by the André Filion and Associates

group (Exhibit G-2, tab 2). The conclusions of the assessment in the Filion group report

(“the Filion report”) of August 2013 were positive.

In September 2013, the selection board decided that Mr. Singh had the

necessary competencies to become Director of Human Resources at the Senate and

recommended as a next step that he meet with the clerk of the Senate, at that time

Mr. O’Brien, who reported to the then-Speaker of the Senate, Senator Pierre-Claude

Nolin. Mr. Singh’s references checks were also positive. However, I note that in his

comments, Mr. Singh’s former supervisor, Mr. Dorion, pointed out that Mr. Singh

should not be micromanaged; rather, management should “trust him and empower

him” (Exhibit G-2, tab 4).

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 9 of 150

Mr. Singh explained that since he was employed in the public service, he came to

the Senate through an Interchange Canada assignment. It meant that even though he

was working at the Senate, he remained employed by the School. He started a one-year

term with the Senate on October 31, 2013, in a position classified SEG-02 (Exhibit G-2,

tab 6).

Mr. Singh explained that the unique classification system at the Senate goes

from SEG-01 to SEG-10 and that an SEG-02 is equivalent to an EX-02 in the public

service, in terms of duties and responsibilities. However, during his Senate assignment,

the School continued to pay his salary, performance pay, and benefits at the EX-01

rate. The School was reimbursed at the EX-01 group and level per the terms of the

Interchange Canada assignment (Exhibit G-2, tab 5).

Mr. Singh mentioned that as the Senate’s director of human resources, he was

responsible for the entire spectrum of human-resources functions. He had 20 to 25

employees reporting to him, including 3 direct managers: 1 for human-resources

corporate matters; 1 for human-resources operations, official languages, and diversity,

headed by one of his former clients, Angela Vanikiotis; and 1 for services to senators.

Mr. Singh said that when he joined the Senate, he reported to Clerk of the Senate

Mr. O’Brien, with whom he had an excellent relationship. Mr. Singh explained that

Mr. O’Brien, who had created a very flat organization, had very little involvement with

Mr. Singh’s work. According to him, Mr. O’Brien entrusted him and told him at the

beginning to manage and to involve him only when an issue arose that could concern

or affect the senators.

Speaking about Ms. Proulx, who was Director of Finance and Procurement and

Chief Financial Officer when he arrived, Mr. Singh indicated that she was a colleague in

charge of the Finance and Procurement Directorate and that she was classified SEG-03,

compared to his SEG-02 classification.

He explained that then, Mr. O’Brien assigned Ms. Proulx as his mentor. She

carried out that role for just a few months because according to Mr. Singh, she was

busy. Mr. Singh stated that there was a “lot of heat” in her sector.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 10 of 150

Mr. Singh explained that he and Ms. Proulx attended many meetings together

often, if not daily, because the Human Resources and Finance and Procurement

Directorates had to work together. He testified that they got along very well.

Mr. Singh explained that part of his and Ms. Proulx’s work was to attend

Standing Committee meetings. The Standing Committee was chaired by Speaker of the

Senate Senator Nolin, and included 15 senators as members. It met every Thursday

when the Senate was in session. When Mr. O’Brien was still the clerk of the Senate, all

directors were invited to sit in the room during those meetings.

The Steering Committee was composed of three senators. It met every Tuesday

night. Its role was to make routine administrative transactions and to prepare for the

Standing Committee meeting on the coming Thursday. Contrary to the Standing

Committee, not all directors were invited to attend its meetings. They could attend

only on invitation from the senators, except for the directors of human resources and

finance and the law clerk, who were expected to attend all meetings.

Mr. Singh explained that his first year at the Senate went very well. He received

his performance appraisal in July 2014 for the period covering fiscal year 2013-2014

(Exhibit G-2, tab 7).

In August 2014, Mr. O’ Brien offered to extend by six months the Interchange

Canada assignment that was to end in October 2014 (Exhibit E-1, tab 3). Mr. Singh

explained that it was done to allow Mr. O’Brien time to run an indeterminate staffing

process for the position of Director of Human Resources.

Mr. Singh explained that the staffing process for that position never took place.

In November 2014, Mr. O’Brien announced his retirement, which meant that no staffing

process was launched. Moreover, from December 2014 to February 2015, when he

retired, Mr. O’Brien was almost never in his office.

Mr. Singh testified that in January 2015, he was called to the office of Speaker of

the Senate Senator Nolin, who told him that with Mr. O’Brien’s retirement, he wanted to

make changes to the Senate’s administrative structure. Among other things, he wanted

someone to head the legislative side and someone to be responsible for corporate

matters and security. Mr. Singh indicated that since the Speaker asked him to keep

things confidential, he researched an appropriate model by himself.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 11 of 150

Mr. Singh stated that in January 2015, he was called to the office of Mr. Pleau,

Chief of Staff for the Speaker. According to Mr. Singh, Mr. Pleau clearly spoke on behalf

of Speaker Nolin and told him that they had decided to go with the new structure of

the Executive Committee and its three sectors chiefs: the chief legislative services

officer, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, and the chief corporate

services officer.

According to Mr. Singh, the positions of Chief Legislative Services Officer and

Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel were already classified equivalent to EX-05, and

Mr. Pleau insisted that the position of Chief Corporate Services Officer be at the same

level, even though the Hay classification norm called for an EX-04 equivalent. In

February 2015, the three chief positions were classified at an EX-05 equivalent.

Mr. Singh’s letter of offer

Mr. Singh testified that shortly after his January 2015 meeting with Mr. Pleau, he

was again called to Mr. Pleau’s office. Mr. Singh indicated that Mr. Pleau had found out

that he was still on an Interchange Canada assignment and not a permanent Senate

employee. According to Mr. Singh, Mr. Pleau was not happy about it since he thought it

was not right for someone who was not a permanent Senate employee to work on high-

level files.

Mr. Singh indicated that Mr. Pleau asked him if he wanted the position of

Director of Human Resources. After replying that he was interested and that he was

being paid only at the EX-01 group and level, while the position was more at the EX-02

group and level, Mr. Singh testified that Mr. Pleau directed him to draft a letter of offer

confirming him as the director of human resources and to bring it to Mr. Pleau before

the end of the day. It was to be kept confidential.

According to Mr. Singh, Mr. Pleau told him to put in the letter, “Whatever the f---

you want.” In his testimony, Mr. Singh admitted that he was familiar with of the

Senate’s Values and Ethics Statement, Code of Conduct, and Conflict of Interest Code for

Persons Employed by the Senate. He also admitted that he was expected to comply with

those policies (Exhibit E-1, tabs 6, 7, and 8).

Mr. Singh testified that he then went to his office and asked for a template for

the letter of offer. As a model, he used one that had been used to appoint a Senate

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 12 of 150

colleague to the House of Commons and entered the salary that he thought was fair,

given that he had been carrying out SEG-02 functions for a while but was being paid

and was receiving performance pay based on an EX-01 salary. For the signing

authorities, he added the names of Speaker Nolin and Clerk O’ Brien and then sent it to

Mr. Pleau, who had no questions about it (Exhibit G-2, tab 9). All parties signed it on

January 19, 2015. As will be detailed later in this decision, the letter’s drafting and its

contents later became an issue with the Executive Committee, for which Mr. Singh

was disciplined.

At a luncheon on January 22, 2015, Speaker Nolin announced the Senate’s

new structure headed by the Executive Committee and managed by its three chiefs.

Mr. Robert became Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the Parliaments. Mr. Patrice,

already Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in addition became responsible for

Parliamentary Precinct Services. Finally, Ms. Proulx was appointed Chief Corporate

Services Officer and became responsible for among other things, human resources

(Exhibit G-2, tab 13). At the same event, the Speaker also announced Mr. Singh’s

appointment to the position of Director of Human Resources. Mr. Singh reported to

Ms. Proulx.

Mr. Singh agreed that at the time, he was pleased with the new Senate

structure, and that in January and February 2015, he still had a positive relationship

with Ms. Proulx (Exhibit E-1, tabs 14 and 15). However, he pointed out that her

management style differed from that of Mr. O’Brien in that she was more hands-on; he

felt micromanaged.

Mr. Singh indicated that he received congratulations for his appointment.

Mr. Robert hugged him, and Mr. Patrice was happy for him. However, Ms. Proulx’s

reaction was not as pleasant. Mr. Singh said that she questioned how the appointment

had been done. According to him, she also said that the Senate could not make an

appointment that way. She never made a positive statement about his appointment,

and her reaction hurt him.

Since he had been appointed the director of human resources on

January 19, 2015, Mr. Singh wrote to the School’s president on January 22, 2015, to let

her know that he was resigning from the public service (Exhibit G-2, tabs 11 and 19).

He said that at that point, he had accumulated a considerable amount of vacation leave

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 13 of 150

in the public service, which he had never had the chance to take because of his

heavy workload.

Notices of intent to appoint

In January 2015, Ms. Vanikiotis was the manager of human-resources

operations and official languages and diversity in the Human Resources Directorate.

She specifically looked after executive-level appointments. Mr. Singh testified that she

told him that Mr. Patrice had said that a notice of intent to appoint him as the director

of human resources had to be issued.

Mr. Singh said that he was not pleased about the notice. His view was that there

was no requirement for the notice since his appointment had been effected via an

external non-advertised process, which is not subject to recourse (Exhibit G-1, tab 14,

pages 14 and 15). He was worried that his appointment might be grieved and that were

the grievance upheld, he would be in trouble, because he had just resigned from the

public service. Thus, he could end up out of a job.

Mr. Singh spoke with Mr. Patrice about the notice, showed him the related

policy, and told him that the Senate needed to withdraw the notice. Mr. Patrice refused

and said that anyway, nobody would grieve it. Mr. Singh told Mr. Patrice that he was

not following the policy (Exhibit G-2, tab 12).

Mr. Singh pointed out that while the notice was issued for his appointment,

none was issued for that of Ms. Proulx, which in his view went against the relevant

Senate policy. He again visited Mr. Patrice about it and was told that Mr. Patrice had

decided not to issue a notice for Ms. Proulx’s appointment since he thought that one

specific person might grieve it. In his testimony, Mr. Patrice categorically denied

stating that.

After reviewing the related emails (Exhibit G-2, tab 10), Mr. Singh

maintained that Ms. Proulx had requested the notice of intent to appoint him; she

had been involved.

As will be demonstrated later in this decision, effectively, one of his employees

grieved Mr. Singh’s appointment.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 14 of 150

Changes to the Senate’s administrative structure

Mr. Singh testified that when the new Executive Committee was brought in, a

string of changes was announced. As a result, some people were moved. He

complained that even though he was the director of human resources, he was not

involved in those decisions and found out about them only afterward. He said that he

met with the three members of the Executive Committee and that he raised the fact

that some human-resources issues had not been addressed, such as classification.

According to Mr. Singh, the three members of the Executive Committee acted

like they were in the private sector. He indicated that the discussions were

confrontational and that he was not happy that processes were not followed when they

made their decisions. He testified that employees assumed that he was involved in the

human-resources decisions. He said that he could have embarrassed Ms. Proulx but

instead that he decided to tell the employees that he had not been involved and to

refer them to Ms. Proulx.

Attending Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings

Mr. Singh testified that on February 4, 2015, all the directors at the Senate were

informed by email that they would attend Standing Committee and Steering Committee

meetings only if their respective chiefs asked them to (Exhibit G-2, tab 14). Mr. Singh

explained that this was a departure from the past practice, in which all the directors

were in the room for Standing Committee meetings and on invitation to those of the

Steering Committee. He pointed out that he had always attended Steering Committee

meetings as a standing member, without an invitation.

Mr. Singh indicated that he met with Ms. Proulx about it and that he was told

that it was the senators’ decision and that it applied to him. He indicated that all the

decisions that those committees make are about human and financial resources, so he

questioned who would address those issues if he were not present at their meetings.

He said that she responded that she would handle it.

Mr. Singh asked to see the minutes showing that decision. Ms. Proulx refused,

which shocked him. He said that before February 4, 2015, he prepared briefing notes

for those committees, which he spoke to. He gave as examples three standing reports

(on official languages, training, and employment equity) that he prepared and

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 15 of 150

presented every year to the committees. He did not know if they were presented after

February 2015.

In cross-examination, Mr. Singh indicated that he brought this matter to the

Executive Committee, which did not explain the senators’ decision. He stated that he

did not recall Ms. Proulx providing the reasons for the decision, despite what is in her

notes (Exhibit G-2, tab 29, page 2).

As a result of that decision, Mr. Singh mentioned that from February to

July 2015, he probably attended four or five Standing Committee meetings and that he

was asked to attend four to six Steering Committee meetings. After that, he did not

attend any more.

Mr. Singh testified that as a result of the decision, he did not know the

human-resources issues that were discussed and stated that Ms. Proulx did not share

what transpired at those meetings. He said that after February 4, 2015, he still wrote

some briefing notes, for instance at Mr. Pleau’s request, but he did not know if they

were even discussed. He also found out that his staff prepared briefing notes without

him being made aware of it. Mr. Singh testified that when he attended executive

meetings chaired by Ms. Proulx in her sector, he realized that other directors continued

to attend the meetings, on invitation, but not him. Despite that, he said that he did not

think that it was all racially motivated.

In cross-examination, Mr. Singh maintained that twice, Ms. Proulx brought one

of his employees to a Standing Committee meeting without informing him. He stated

that Gilles Duguay, who was Director General of Parliamentary Precinct Services and

who reported to Mr. Patrice, attended more often than he did. However, he admitted

that the precinct was a hot topic at the Senate during the summer of 2015 because of

the shooting that happened in the fall of 2014 on Parliament Hill but insisted that the

work being done on the precinct file involved human-resources issues.

He also agreed that during that summer of 2015, no Standing Committee

meeting was held, and that the Steering Committee met only two or three times.

Furthermore, since there was a federal election in the fall of 2015, the House of

Commons and the Senate returned to sitting only in December 2015. Therefore, from

June to December 2015, no regular Standing Committee meeting was held, and the

Steering Committee met only two or three times.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 16 of 150

Mr. Singh also said that every two weeks, he held a meeting with Ms. Proulx,

which was different from Mr. O’Brien’s methods, who met with him only rarely and

only if there was an issue. Mr. O’Brien never went to Mr. Singh’s employees directly.

However, in his testimony, Mr. Singh admitted to holding bilateral meetings with

his staff.

The Senate’s compensation study

In his testimony, Mr. Singh spoke about the Senate’s compensation study. It

dealt with a long-standing issue of examining and comparing the compensation of

senators’ office staff. Mr. Singh indicated that in April 2015, the Human Resources

Directorate was ready to issue its report, but that Ms. Proulx became increasingly

involved in the related minutia. According to him, she reread every letter that was to

be issued to senators’ staff and redid each calculation. Originally, she had wanted to

sign the letters but changed her mind, so he had to sign them. According to Mr. Singh,

this frustrated his staff significantly, and in the end, it was a waste of time.

When he was asked if he was aware that Ms. Proulx had been involved in a

similar process a few years before, Mr. Singh said that he was aware of that and that it

had not been successful. When he was asked if she really went through the 300 letters,

Mr. Singh maintained that she was involved in all the calculations but agreed that as

the chief corporate services officer, she had the prerogative to become involved.

The chief financial officer development program

Mr. Singh testified that once Ms. Proulx was appointed Chief Corporate Services

Officer, the need arose to fill the position of Director of Finance and Procurement and

Chief Financial Officer. He gave her the names of some potential candidates and

suggested to her establishing a chief financial officer development program for future

recruitment. The program’s goal would be to develop people over time with the view to

eventually appointing a new director. He stated that the program’s purpose would also

be to help recruit members of visible minority groups. Ms. Proulx thought it was good

idea, and the program was announced in April 2015 (Exhibit G-2, tab 18).

Mr. Singh testified that after the program was launched, he did not expect

Ms. Proulx to be involved. He pointed out that it was a development program that

involved people who were not at the executive level; therefore, he did not see the need

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 17 of 150

for someone classified EX-05 to be involved. Moreover, he did not appreciate her telling

him who in his directorate should be assigned to the project.

In his testimony, Mr. Singh qualified Ms. Proulx’s intervention as “insane”. In

addition, he disagreed with the fact that she designated Hélène Bouchard, Director of

Information Services, to replace her on the selection board for the program. He

testified that he viewed Ms. Proulx’s intervention as meaning that “he was out” and as

another expression of her bias toward favouring French Canadians (Exhibit G-2,

tab 19).

Mr. Singh stated that he was not consulted as to the composition of the

selection board for that program. Nor was he part of it, despite his considerable

advisory experience. He maintained that he would have done things differently had he

been involved. The selection board included Ms. Bouchard; Bonnie Marga, Director of

Finance and Procurement and Chief Financial Officer on an acting basis; and a

consultant, Hugues St. Pierre.

Mr. Singh indicated that the selection board did not qualify any of the internal

candidates, which was very disconcerting, since it basically sent the message that the

Senate was not prepared to invest in its people.

While the selection board included a member with a disability, Mr. Singh

insisted that despite the fact that two of the four applicants were members of visible

minority groups, the board did not include a member of such a group, which was

contrary to best practices to eliminate bias. He referred to the Senate’s staffing and

recruitment strategy, which guides managers to ensure a diverse and representative

workforce (Exhibit G-1, tab 13, pages 3, 5, and 9). He also referred to the Senate’s

employment equity policy, in which the Senate recognizes the need to increase

representation in the designated groups of women, aboriginal people, persons with

disabilities, and members of visible minority groups (Exhibit G-1, tab 15).

On that note, Mr. Singh complained that the Senate had very few strategies to

improve the representation of visible minorities. He insisted that while the Senate’s

visible-minority employees might have increased, nevertheless, out of 30 managers,

only 4 were from a visible minority group, and they left shortly after he did (Exhibit

G-1, tab 8, page 12).

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 18 of 150

In cross-examination, Mr. Singh agreed that at the relevant time, he never raised

the issue that the selection board had no visible-minority member, nor did he offer to

Ms. Proulx that he could sit on the selection board. He also agreed that she had no

involvement with the board’s work. As to why he signed the board’s recommendation,

he said that the extent of his role was only to verify whether the staffing file

was complete.

Mr. Singh’s disciplinary hearing and the letter of reprimand

As mentioned earlier in this decision, the notice of intent to appoint Mr. Singh

to the position of Director of Human Resources was grieved. He testified that on

April 2, 2015, at a meeting, Ms. Proulx told him that as the final level of the grievance

process, she had dismissed the grievance (Exhibit G-5). However, she also told him that

during the investigation of the grievance, some questions were raised about his letter

of offer. She took notes at the meeting. Michel Bédard, the Senate’s counsel, also

attended (Exhibit G-2, tab 16).

On May 5, 2015, Ms. Proulx wrote to Mr. Singh and invited him to attend a

disciplinary meeting to determine whether he had breached the standards of conduct

when he prepared his letter of offer in which he established his salary, waived the

probation period, and transferred some 300 hours of vacation leave.

On that same day, in a telephone discussion with Ms. Proulx about the interview,

Mr. Singh said that he told her that he did not understand why there was an issue since

Mr. O’Brien and Speaker Nolin had signed the letter. In cross-examination, he denied

telling her that it was “bullshit” and that he completely disrespected Mr. Patrice

(Exhibit E-1, tab 11 over).

The disciplinary meeting was originally set for May 7 but effectively took place

on May 15, 2015. The three members of the Executive Committee were present; so was

Mr. Bédard. Mr. Singh was accompanied by Denis Desharnais, for whom he had worked

at the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In addition to the fact that as the director of human resources, Mr. Singh

prepared his letter of offer, the following three things in it were at issue at

that meeting:

 he had set his salary;

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 19 of 150

 he had waived his probation period; and

 he had transferred his 300 hours of leave from the public service to the Senate.

The letter of offer indicated that the salary was to be $132 500. Mr. Singh told

the Executive Committee that on January 12, 2015, Mr. Pleau had told him that since

he had been performing work at an SEG-02 or EX-02 level, he should receive that

salary. The EX-02 maximum salary was $139 300. In January 2015, since he was still

being paid as an EX-01, Mr. Singh was earning around $125 000 (Exhibit E-2, tab 7). He

explained that he made the adjustment and that he considered that his performance

pay was limited per the terms of the Interchange Canada assignment. As a result, he

came up with a salary of $132 500, which was still less than the maximum of $139 300

for an EX-02 or SEG-02 equivalent (Exhibits G-2, tab 5, G-6, and G-8).

Mr. Singh admitted that he did not verify with anyone, including Ms. Vanikiotis,

who would normally prepare these letters, whether the Senate accepted the new salary,

the waiving of the probation period, and the leave transfer. Also, in January 2015, he

did not tell Mr. Pleau that the new salary would not be at the lower end of the EX-02

salary scale because Mr. Pleau had told him to put whatever he wanted in the letter. He

assumed that Mr. Pleau and Speaker Nolin had read it. They certainly signed it and said

nothing. As for Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Singh indicated that he had been at the Senate for over

30 years and that he read everything.

As for not including a probationary period, Mr. Singh explained to the Executive

Committee that he had been in the position for over 18 months, which was beyond the

12-month probation period; therefore, he waived it.

With respect to the leave transfer, Mr. Singh told the Executive Committee that

as a template for the letter of offer, he chose one that had been used to transfer a

Senate employee to the House of Commons, including vacation leave. He said that at a

meeting, Mr. Bédard showed him the policy on terms and conditions of employment,

which states that such a transfer cannot be done. Mr. Singh then admitted not knowing

about those terms and conditions and apologized for the mistake. He indicated that

he did not check the Senate’s leave-transfer policy and stated that he was remorseful

and embarrassed.

On June 1, 2015, Mr. Singh met again with the Executive Committee and

Mr. Bédard. He was informed that the vacation leave would be cashed out. As for the

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 20 of 150

salary and the probation period issues, they said that they did not agree with him but

that they were prepared to move on. According to Mr. Singh, at the end of the meeting,

the committee was fine with the two issues.

On June 12, 2015, the Executive Committee imposed a letter of reprimand on

him for his actions (Exhibit G-2, tab 22). Mr. Singh indicated that he did not agree with

the letter, but since he did not want to rehash the matter, he did not grieve it.

In cross-examination, Mr. Singh admitted that the Executive Committee could

have been harsher, in terms of discipline. He also explained that a couple of weeks

after the disciplinary meeting, he and Ms. Proulx talked about being “more polite”, so

he was more polite in his email to her on June 25, 2015 (Exhibit E-1, tab 18), which

reads as follows:

Nicole, thank you for including me on this email. I do not want to

destroy what I consider a developing friendship.

I promise, that as a first step, I will be more polite in my written

communication with you and hope we ca [sic] resolve any

difference we may have.

Have a good evening,

Darshan

Later in his testimony, Mr. Singh talked about a situation in which a

harassment complaint was made against one of Mr. Patrice’s directors general. After an

investigation was carried out, Mr. Singh said that some allegations were founded but

that the Executive Committee decided not to impose discipline, despite Mr. Singh and

Diane Blais’ recommendation. He stated that the person who made the complaint was

fired, against his recommendation.

Ms. Vanikiotis’s Interchange Canada assignment and sick-leave requests

Mr. Singh testified that around May 5, 2015, when he was informed that he

would be called to a disciplinary meeting, one of his direct report, Ms. Vanikiotis,

spoke to him about an assignment opportunity for her. He indicated that although she

reported to him and that he had the delegated authority to agree to an Interchange

Canada assignment, he told Ms. Proulx about it. She had reservations about it. She

raised it with Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert and spoke privately with Ms. Vanikiotis

(Exhibit G-2, tab 20).

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 21 of 150

Mr. Singh said that he was not pleased with this. He raised it at a meeting in

May 2015 with Ms. Proulx and Mr. Patrice. Mr. Singh said that he prepared notes in

anticipation of the meeting (Exhibit G-2, tab 21).

Mr. Singh said that at the meeting, he told Ms. Proulx that she was

micromanaging him and that she should not directly access his people. He also told

her that he believed that she would not behave that way toward Ms. Bouchard. He

indicated that he did not raise all the points he had placed in his pre-meeting notes but

that certainly, he told Ms. Proulx to stop micromanaging him, and he raised the issue

of trust.

In cross-examination, Mr. Singh denied that there was tension between him and

Ms. Vanikiotis and said that she was good at and professional in her job. He was also

asked to explain why he refused granting her sick-leave request in February 2015. He

responded that he had only followed the instructions on granting leave, which he

disagreed with, and that Ms. Proulx had provided the day before Ms. Vanikiotis’s leave

request. He maintained that had Ms. Proulx not been involved, there would have been

no issue (Exhibit G-2, tab 15).

Leadership development program for procedural and legislative clerks

Mr. Singh testified that on June 12, 2015, Mr. Robert announced a “Leadership

Development Program for Procedural and Legislative Clerks” in his sector. Mr. Singh

testified that he had not been informed of it and that Ms. Vanikiotis told him about it

on that day. According to him, Mr. Robert went behind his back and dealt directly with

his staff to put that program together, and Ms. Proulx was aware of it but did not tell

him about it (Exhibit G-2, tab 23).

Proposed changes to the Human Resources Directorate

Mr. Singh testified that still in June 2015, Peter Nunan, Senior Labour Relations

Advisor, was offered a secondment of six to nine months outside the Human

Resources Directorate, which thus required some changes. On June 17, Mr. Singh

emailed Ms. Proulx, asking for her comments if, in his words, “she needed” to express

them. Still on this issue, he emailed her again on June 19, asking for her comments but

with the caveat that she should let the managers manage. On June 21, she forwarded

Mr. Singh’s email to Mr. Patrice, adding only, “Grrr” (Exhibit G-7). Mr. Singh’s emails

read as follows (Exhibits G-2, tab 24, and G-7):

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 22 of 150

[The June 17 email:]

Bonjour Nicole,

As discussed yesterday, this is what we are proposing for changes

in HR. Please note that all the managers are on the same page and

in agreement. I have not copied them so you have an opportunity

to respond to me directly if you need to

…

[The June 19 email:]

Bonjour Nicole,

Here are the proposed changes and the draft org. chart for your

comments.

Also, according to the delegation of authorities’ matrix, these

proposed changes are within my authority as there are no

indeterminate appointments or assignments greater than 6

months, no reclassifications, etc. Though I share them with you out

of respect, I fully expect to be able to follow the words of the

Speaker which are let managers manage.

Merci

Darshan

Still on June 21, 2015, at 09:03, Ms. Proulx indicated that she was not

comfortable with the proposed changes. A few minutes later, at 09:22, she emailed

again, still questioning the reorganization’s proposals and pointing out that “… HR has

to be purer than pure …” (Exhibit G-2, tab 25). She stated: “Bonjour Darshan … As you

know, HR has to be purer than pure in its HR activities and I find that the proposal has

some areas of concern …” (Exhibit G-2, tab 25).

Mr. Singh responded that this was an example of micromanaging and that

he would bring it to another level. Ms. Proulx indicated that the matter would be

discussed at the executive level, to which he responded on June 23, 2015 (Exhibit G-2,

tabs 24 and 25), with: “Nicole, You are, of course, free to do as you wish and given how

rarely HR is invited to … the Executive Committee, it will be a novelty. For clarity

purposes, however, and for the record, you are wrong on the next level."

Mr. Singh admitted that his email response to Ms. Proulx was sarcastic but

nevertheless maintained that he stated a fact in it. He also admitted that some of the

proposed changes were at the managerial level, which would require Ms. Proulx’s

involvement, and that her approval was needed for requests for additional staffing

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 23 of 150

actions, such as the creation of a shadow position for business system (Exhibit G-1,

tab 17, pages 2 and 3).

Mr. Singh also agreed that a supervisor has the right to question and raise

concerns even when staffing authority has been delegated to a subordinate.

Nevertheless, he expressed that in this case, he was subject to extra scrutiny, to which

the other director, Ms. Bouchard, was not. He also stated that it was “crazy” in the

sense that Ms. Proulx intervened in matters in which she did not have to be involved.

Mr. Singh testified that their relationship involved the clash of what he wanted

versus what she wanted. In his view, she questioned his ethics. She became involved in

matters that did not require her involvement, which made him feel like he had done

something wrong. He said that he wanted to talk to Senator Housakos or to

Deputy Chair, Senator George Furey, about it. If that could not happen, he would raise

it with the Steering Committee. He indicated that Ms. Proulx’s micromanagement was

harassment, as defined in the Senate’s related policy (Exhibit G-1, tab 16, page 12).

Two Executive Committee meetings and conference attendance

Mr. Singh testified that after sending his June 23, 2015, email to Ms. Proulx, he

attended a meeting with the Executive Committee. He had prepared some notes in

anticipation (Exhibit G-2, tab 26). Going over them, he said that he brought up the

subject of his race at the meeting, along with the fact that he felt ostracized and

isolated and that Ms. Proulx treated him differently because he was not

French Canadian, unlike anybody else reporting to her.

Mr. Singh testified that he also raised the fact that his attendance at the

Canadian Association of Parliamentary Administration conference had still not been

approved but that Ms. Bouchard’s attendance had been. He said that Ms. Proulx took

notes but that she but did not really address his concern.

Mr. Singh later testified that he found out only two weeks before the Canadian

Association of Parliamentary Administration conference that he was to attend, while

Ms. Bouchard had known four months in advance. Ms. Proulx also attended. Mr. Singh

said that he had never heard of a Senate directive limiting the number of participants

at an external conference to two employees (Exhibit G-9). Mr. Singh testified that the

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 24 of 150

three of them finally went to the conference and that they had a good time; they even

danced together!

When he was asked about Point 4 of his pre-meeting note, stating, “When you

are always defending, a strategy that can be used is to attack! I can’t wait for the mgt

[sic] retreat”, Mr. Singh could not explain what it was directed to and indicated that he

never said it at the Executive Committee meeting (Exhibit G-2, tab 26).

Mr. Singh indicated that also raised at that Executive Committee meeting was

the question of who would handle a complaint made against an Executive Committee

member. He said that Mr. Patrice answered that it would be one of the two other chiefs.

Mr. Singh said that he told Mr. Patrice that that was not appropriate and that it did not

match the relevant policy.

As to the comments Mr. Singh would have made about Ms. Proulx’s human-

resources qualifications, which are part of her notes, stating, “Nicole is not an expert in

HR — not qualified to make decisions on HR” (Exhibit G-2, tab 29, page 2), Mr. Singh

said that he told Mr. Patrice that Ms. Proulx was not qualified to speak to senators

about human-resources matters. He indicated that the three members of the Executive

Committee were agitated at the meeting and that so was he, probably (Exhibit G-2,

tab 29 -Ms. Proulx’s note).

Mr. Singh indicated that the discussion was pursued later that afternoon with

Mr. Patrice, who asked him what was the matter. Mr. Singh replied, “It used to be the

three of you and me. Now it is the three of you without me.” He said that he used to be

consulted and that it happened no longer. He did not know where they got their

opinions from, and he felt excluded.

Mr. Singh said that at that point, Mr. Patrice asked him if he was happy in his

position. Mr. Singh answered that he was but that he was not happy about how things

were going.

Mr. Singh testified about a second meeting with the Executive Committee, likely

in August 2015, at which, among other things, he again raised the issue of being

excluded from the Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings, and he

again asked to see the record of the decision to the effect that directors at the Senate

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 25 of 150

would attend those meetings only if their respective chiefs asked them to. He said that

his request was denied (Exhibit G-2, tab 29, page 2 of Ms. Proulx’s notes).

Proposed changes to the Human Resources Directorate (continued)

Once more on the issue of the changes to the Human Resources Directorate and

Mr. Nunan’s secondment, Mr. Singh testified that after his June discussion with

Ms. Proulx on the subject, in July or August 2015, he prepared a document on the

proposed changes to the Human Resources Directorate and gave it to her in late

August or early September 2015 for her consideration (Exhibit G-2, tab 28).

On September 10, 2015, Mr. Singh had a meeting with Ms. Proulx. They again

discussed changes to the Human Resources Directorate. The issue of employees’

assignments was still an ongoing disagreement. Specifically, they discussed who would

replace Mr. Nunan during his secondment. According to Mr. Singh, Ms. Proulx did not

accept or deny the proposal about that issue. He maintained that she wanted to

appoint Ms. Blais as a replacement for Mr. Nunan, and he was of the view that

Ms. Maria-Chantal Eynoux was the better choice, especially since Ms. Blais had been

away from the Senate for few years; she returned in 2014. He also indicated that

Ms. Eynoux is black.

Ms. Proulx’s notes of that meeting were filed as an exhibit (Exhibit G-2, tab 30).

Mr. Singh testified that on September 16, 2015, he received, in a sealed envelope, a

letter from Ms. Proulx about the September 10 discussion (Exhibit G-2, tab 31). He

stated that she still insisted on replacing Mr. Nunan with Ms. Blais. Mr. Singh testified

that while Ms. Proulx’s letter was not a letter of reprimand, it was very formal. He

interpreted it as a threat with consequences if he did not do what she wanted.

Therefore, he did not challenge her letter.

However, he did email her September 28, 2015, about a revised staffing strategy.

He pointed out that he did not have to do it but that he respected her requirements.

She replied on October 13, 2015, and he responded on October 14 (Exhibit G-2, tab 32).

Mr. Singh said that he had bilateral meetings with his employees every two

weeks. At one such meeting with Ms. Blais, he found out that Ms. Proulx had offered

her the chance to replace Mr. Nunan during his secondment. Mr. Singh said that

Ms. Blais and Ms. Proulx used to work together and that they were friends. Later on, he

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 26 of 150

nuanced that affirmation; he stated that he did not know if Ms. Proulx and Ms. Blais

were friends outside work and that Ms. Proulx “had a lot of friends”. Finally, he

indicated that he had had no choice and that he assigned Ms. Blais to replace

Mr. Nunan (Exhibit G-2, tab 33).

Human Resources Directorate functional review

Mr. Singh testified that in June 2015, Ms. Proulx informed him that the Human

Resources Directorate was to go through a functional review exercise. He indicated that

the Senate’s Communications Directorate had just gone through one after an Auditor

General audit, and the senators wanted it followed up. An external firm had been hired

to review the functions in the Communications Directorate, the way the work was

being done, etc. As a result, according to Mr. Singh, the entire Communications

Directorate was “annihilated”; every job was lost.

Mr. Singh testified that he questioned the need for a functional review of the

Human Resources Directorate and asked who had decided that one was needed. At

some point, he was told that the senators had made the decision. He said that he

wanted to know why he was not involved in the related discussion with the senators.

In Mr. Singh’s view, at that time, the Human Resources Directorate was

functioning much better and was receiving considerable praise for its work, including

from the Executive Committee. In his opinion, the Finance and Procurement

Directorate should have been obvious choices for such a review. They had never had

one. Mr. Singh testified that some consultants began the Human Resources Directorate

functional review in October or November 2015, which was about the time that

Ms. Proulx lost her father and was involved, as a witness, in the trial of Senator

Mike Duffy (“the Duffy trial”).

Legislative sector retreat

Mr. Singh testified that in November 2015, Mr. Robert asked him to attend a

legislative sector retreat and to present to the employees of that sector. Mr. Singh said

that the presentation went well but that during the plenary, a young black man asked

him why the Senate did not have any person of colour in a senior position. Mr. Singh

said that he was at the podium when the question was asked and that he did not really

have an answer but that he tried to make light of the question while not embarrassing

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 27 of 150

anyone. He told the young man that it was a serious issue, that the Executive

Committee was very committed to diversity, and that more training was needed.

The Senate’s main estimates

Mr. Singh explained that the Senate has a main-estimates process, in which in

the early summer, the directorates identify their financial needs for the next fiscal

year. Their requests then go the Standing Committee’s Subcommittee on the Senate

Estimates for approval roughly in November. Mr. Singh indicated that it is a good

opportunity for the directors to explain their programs to that subcommittee.

Mr. Singh went through the exercise in 2014, but since he was new and wanted a

better feel for his directorate’s needs, he did not ask for additional resources at that

point. Such requests are made through “capsules”, which are a kind of template or

briefing note presented to the subcommittee in which the need for additional

resources is explained, along with the cost.

However, in 2015, he intended to ask for funding for a shadow person for his

data employee. And he wanted funds for the training of senators’ staff that they had

asked for.

Mr. Singh testified that he told Ms. Proulx about his plan at a meeting in

August 2015 and stated that she was supportive. He talked to her again about it a

month later and stated that she “did not say no”. In early October, he prepared his

two capsules.

Mr. Singh said that on Monday, November 16, 2015, Pascale Legault, newly

appointed Director of Finance and Procurement and Chief Financial Officer, and

Ms. Proulx, who had returned to work after two weeks following her father’s death,

came to his office. They danced and held hands in his office and began to attack him

verbally. Ms. Proulx asked him why the two capsules he had prepared were still there,

while Ms. Legault told him to pull them. He said that he was under the impression that

he would have a chance to discuss his capsules at Ms. Proulx’s management meeting.

Mr. Singh said that he felt humiliated and that he wondered how Ms. Legault,

who just started to work for the Senate, could tell him what had to be done. In his

view, she and Ms. Proulx were good friends, and it was obvious that they had been

talking behind his back (Exhibit G-2, tab 34). In his testimony, he maintained that

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 28 of 150

Ms. Proulx never told him that she wanted the Human Resources Directorate to absorb

the cost of a shadow position or that with respect to training senators’ staff, she

wanted to wait for the Human Resources Directorate review exercise. She told him not

to go ahead with the two capsules.

In cross-examination, when he was asked about the November 16 meeting,

Mr. Singh nuanced his reply and indicated that there had been no dancing, that

nevertheless, Ms. Proulx had not been solemn, and that both Ms. Proulx and

Ms. Legault had been happy.

The November 24 email

Mr. Singh testified that the week following the November 16, 2015, meeting with

Ms. Proulx and Ms. Legault had been difficult. He could not talk about it and decided to

put his thoughts on paper. He wanted to tell Ms. Proulx how he felt. He was angry,

humiliated, and upset. He was at a breaking point; he did not sleep well.

Mr. Singh felt that he no longer had any responsibilities. The last time he had

seen a senator had been in June, and the Executive Committee had no time for him.

Ms. Proulx went directly to his staff. He decided to send her the November 24 email. He

pointed out that as of then, it was not a formal complaint, and that he wanted to write

to her out of emotion, to make her aware of his concerns. He also wanted to address

the senators’ concerns about receiving human-resources information. According to

him, the senators felt that the former boss, Mr. O’Brien, had been “running the show”,

not them. Mr. Singh thought they needed to be informed about things. He pointed out

that never before had he made such a complaint.

Since in the hearing, the content of the November 24 email was referred to

often, and since it was an important part of the decision to terminate Mr. Singh’s

employment, I think it is important to reproduce it in its entirety, as follows (Exhibit

G-1, tab 1):

From: Singh, Darshan

To: Proulx, Nicole

Nicole,

I am writing this response to you today as I did not want you to

think that I was writing out of emotion. I am also cognizant of the

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 29 of 150

fact that you have been going through a lot recently (Duffy trial

and your father’s passing). Please know that I have given this

much thought and am writing because I believe that I need to put

these words on paper to protect myself and to protect the HR

Directorate.

I am deeply concerned with the current decision making process in

the Senate Administration and the way that HR information is

being presented to Senators. I am deeply loyal to this organization

and have serious concerns relating to:

1) Senators not receiving accurate information;

2) Options not being presented to the Senators for their decision

making;

3) Only selected pieces of information being provided to

Senators.

The main issue I have is that I believe you are proceeding contrary

to what is in the definition of our roles. We are to provide all

information to Senators, whether they wish to receive it or not,

that is required in order for them to make decisions. We do not get

to make decisions for them. When you choose to present only one

option, you are basically telling them that the decision is made by

Senate Administration. You are not presenting Senators with

complete information so that they can carry out their role

effectively. You are making decisions for them.

I do not want this to appear to be related to training only. This is

an issue that has been ongoing for quite some time under the new

leadership. I now have several different instances where you have

chosen to provide only specific information to the Senators and not

provide complete information.

You are correct in your email when you say that you are the

person ultimately responsible for Corporate Services. You were

also correct in the letter that you presented to me on September

16, 2015 where you stated that the position which I occupy, reports

to the Chief Corporate Services Officer, not the Executive

Committee. However, as per my job description:

“As the senior human resources executive of the Senate, the

Director is accountable for developing, recommending and

implementing the total rage of policies and programs affecting

human resources management requirements in support of

operations, highly sensitive issues of the Senate and Senators’

offices, and for providing leadership with respect to implementing

the Senate’s role as employer under the Parliamentary

Employment and Staff Relations Act (PESRA).”

As I have not been at any Steering Committee or Internal Economy

meeting, I am not aware of what recommendations relating to HR

are being given. Therefore, I request, that when you present

information relating to HR, that you clearly state it as your own

opinion and not the opinion or information provided to you by HR.

This becomes difficult for me to defend as was evidenced by the

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 30 of 150

information you providedto Senator Wells regarding compensation

rules which simply do not exist.

I also want to touch on another matter which has been bothering

me for quite some time. In my role, at all times, I am required to

present the Senate as a modern employer that encompasses the

beliefs of a healthy and respectful workplace. Last week, during

the Legislative Sector retreat, I had to comment on a question from

an employee wondering why we do not have a representative

amount of persons of colour in management positions. I told the

employee that we are working to fix this issue and that I have

never felt lesser in front of any of my colleagues. I want to tell you

today that this is untrue. I have not felt like I am treated differently

with the other members of the Executive Committee or Dr. O’Brien

(the former Clerk). I have however, repeatedly felt it with you. You

may ignore this claim but it is real and a source of stress and

discomfort for me. Similarly to how women are able to tell if a

man is looking at them in an inappropriate manner, persons of

colour can also sense this. I also want you to know that I have

heard this from other employees that fall under the purview of the

CCSO. I also noted this when I presented Maria-Chantal’s (SEN-10)

name as a possible replacement for Peter Nunan. Despite the fact

that you had seen her cv and has received positive feedback from

clients which you yourself told me about, you an (EX-05) stepped in

and put forward the name of an old friend and colleague who you

felt more comfortable with (a SEN-09). You relayed this name to

me on at least 3 occasions an even went as far as speak to the

employee directly without notifying me.

To put it simply, I do not feel like I am being treated equally and

fear that it is racially driven rather than based on my

performance.

All of your direct reports are white and all of your direct reports

are French Canadian. All of your direct reports have been present

in Steering Committee meetings or Internal Economy Committee

meeting, except for me. This is more than just coincidence. I would

like for this unfair treatment to stop immediately. I am being

singled out, and it is for more than just me giving my opinion. My

opinion, by the way, is the reason I am in this position. If you

wanted someone to simply say yes to your every request, then

Senator Nolin did not select the right person for the position.

I also want to note that all 4 applicants in the CFO Professional

Development Program were Anglophones and that 2 of the 4 were

visible minorities. Yet, you did not qualify any of them. One of the

4 was already in an EX position, and 2 others have since qualified

in EX pools.

Some other matters of concern:

Whenever I have raised my concerns with you, you often have said

that there is not enough time to complete a task or that it is not the

right time. I do not feel any support from you and unfortunately I

believe that it will never be the right time and that you will never

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 31 of 150

have enough time to complete HR related responsibilities. The

following excerpt from your job description clearly identifies your

overall responsibility towards HR and does not discuss working on

specific files:

“In this innovative executive structure, all three share in the

direction and planning of the Administration in order to provide

effective and efficient support to the Senate generally and to the

Speaker of the Senate and the CIBA specifically.”

As I have expressed on numerous occasions, thought you are

ultimately responsible for HR, you also hold the notion that you are

responsible for my specific tasks. This is not accurate. Your job

description is very specific in regards to HR responsibility as is

mine. I would ask that you respect your responsibilities and allow

me to do my job. I will not comment on your job, but I will

comment on mine by saying that I am the most qualified person in

the Senate Administration to be leading HR and am unfortunately

being left out of all HR decisions. I would ask that you allow me to

do my job and that you stop micro-managing my duties. This

again, is unfair treatment and I am left to wonder why.

I also want it to be noted that on many matters relating to HR, I

am not consulted by the Executive Committee prior to a decision

being made. When you and the committee speak to management,

and tell them that you are about to make a change, it implies that

I have been consulted. I would ask that you clearly state to those in

attendance that this is a decision of the Executive Committee and

that neither I nor my team were involved. This has happened on

numerous occasions such as when the new leadership structure

was presented or the IIA posted was issued.

I also want it to be noted that my opinion or advice is not usually

followed when dealing with disciplinary matters. This was the case

for the recent harassment and workplace assessment case that

took place within the Administration.

I would also like to note for the record that many, if not all, of my

colleagues have expressed major concerns with the leadership

currently being shown. I admit that I have been the most vocal in

my opinions, but that my colleagues will not speak up as they are

in fear. I only speak up as I would like to remain true to one of my

core values. “If you do not speak up when you see wrong being

done, than you are as guilty as the person(s) committing the

wrong.”

I would like it to be noted that I still have not been provided with

any legitimate reason as to why the HR Directorate is undergoing

a review. Logic would dictate that given the year and a half that

the Finance and Procurement Directorate has undergone,

including the results of the audit, the fact that 15 Senators are

under investigation by the RCMP and the complaints of Senators

related to Finance and Procurement rules, that this would be the

place to start. Yet, for some reason, unbeknownst to anyone, you

have chosen to have a review of HR done. There are only two

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 32 of 150

reasonable assumptions that can be made – favouritism for your

former Directorate or discriminatory practices

Your appointment was also a non-advertised appointment, yet the

rules were apparently different for your appointment and one of

your colleague’s appointments than they were for mine. There is

only one reasonable assumption that can be made – discriminatory

practices.

I also want to note that the leave rules upon hiring for the new

CFO were able to be amended with no challenges from you, but for

me were cause for a disciplinary hearing, despite the Clerk’s and

Executive Committee’s approval of my hire. Again, why?

Though I could go on, on many matters related to our time

together, I want to formally request the following:

1) I would like to request that the HR Directorate be temporarily

moved under the leadership of one of the other Chiefs;

2) In the event that you do not meet request number 1, I would

like to request that all information that is provided to

Senators, the Executive Committee, or to any client, should be

assumed to not be coming from HR unless I have put in

writing that HR agrees to what is being presented;

3) I ask that the Executive committee, or any of its members,

that speak to changes, decisions, or initiatives, ensure that it

is communicated that HR was not consulted;

4) That a vision or mission statement for the Administration be

communicated in writing to all employees;

5) That the behaviour of treating me differently than my

colleagues stop immediately;

I know that this email will cause you some discomfort. I do not

need to discuss it any further as I have put my concerns in writing.

I do not require a response. Simple decisions on my requests are all

that I require.

My primary concern remains a commitment to serving Senators. I

believe that all information should be shared with them and that

the appropriate persons be there to provide them with counsel.

Thank you,

Darshan

[Sic throughout]

During his testimony, Mr. Singh reviewed the email and commented on it. Some

of the issues in it have already been covered in the retelling of his testimony.

For instance, Mr. Singh returned to the fact that he felt that Ms. Proulx was

treating him differently because of his race. He said that if he was told that he is

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 33 of 150

competent, by those including Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert, the only explanation for

Ms. Proulx’s behaviour was that it was based on his race. He pointed out that some of

her other employees felt the same as he did. He also noted that she wanted to assign

Ms. Blais, who in his view was her old friend, instead of Ms. Eynoux, who is black, to

replace Mr. Nunan.

Mr. Singh insisted that at that point, he had not been provided with the reason

for the Human Resources Directorate functional review. In his view, it was because

Ms. Proulx did not want senators to review the Finance and Procurement Directorate

since she had been specifically responsible for it before becoming the chief corporate

services officer.

Returning to the fact that his appointment was subject to a notice of intent to

appoint, which was not issued for Ms. Proulx’s appointment, Mr. Singh maintained that

the Executive Committee contravened the Senate administration staffing and

appointment policy and its appendix. In his words, “Why make it more difficult for the

brown Anglo [sic] man and not for the white woman?”

Mr. Singh also testified about two separate incidents not covered in his

November 24 email. He stated that in 2013, one of his senior advisors told him that

there was a problem with a senator who was not Caucasian. Mr. O’Brien called

Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx to a meeting. Mr. O’Brien asked Ms. Proulx for her views

about the issue. According to Mr. Singh, she replied, “These people are like that.”

Mr. Singh also referred to another incident in which another senator who

was not Caucasian was the subject of very serious sexual impropriety allegations.

Mr. O’Brien again invited Ms. Proulx to a meeting to obtain her views. Mr. Singh

indicated that again, she would have said, “These people are like that.” He testified that

he asked her what she meant by that. She replied, “You know, those senators all have

big egos.”

Mr. Singh insisted that the request in the November 24 email to have the

Human Resources Directorate report to another chief was not strong but rather was

reasonable.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 34 of 150

Events after the November 24 email

Mr. Singh testified that the day after he sent the email to Ms. Proulx, he was

called to a meeting in Mr. Robert’s office. Mr. Patrice was already there. Mr. Patrice did

the talking and said that the email would be treated under the Senate Policy on the

Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace (“the harassment policy”)

and that an outside firm would investigate it (Exhibit G-1, tab 16).

Mr. Singh was also told that he and the Human Resources Directorate would

report to Mr. Robert until the investigation was completed and that Mr. Robert and

Mr. Patrice would inform the senators. Mr. Singh understood that the allegations to be

investigated were those about the harassment and racial discrimination against him.

He pointed out that it was not “what [he] wanted, but it is what it is”.

The day after that meeting, Mr. Singh emailed both Mr. Robert and Mr. Patrice

(Exhibit G-1, tab 2). Mr. Singh testified that he wanted to signal that he was open to

other means of resolution. He stated that with his experience, he wanted to resolve

things amicably with Ms. Proulx. For instance, a mediator could have been involved.

Neither Mr. Robert nor Mr. Patrice responded.

The following Tuesday, December 1, 2015, Mr. Singh attended the Standing

Committee’s Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates meeting despite the fact that his

two capsules had been withdrawn. His colleague directors made their requests for

additional funding. When his turn came, he was sitting next to Mr. Patrice. He told the

subcommittee that the Human Resource Directorate had no requests. A senator asked

him about the request for training the senators’ staff.

Mr. Singh said that Ms. Proulx and Ms. Legault then interrupted. He said that he

was then asked for his thoughts about it. According to him, at that point, Mr. Patrice

grabbed his arm and told the senators that Ms. Proulx would answer, which she did.

After that, Mr. Singh said that he felt like he was done and that he was ready to hurt

himself. He had been humiliated in front of the subcommittee. He had never seen

someone not answer one of their questions.

The termination of Mr. Singh’s employment

On December 3, 2015, Mr. Singh was called to Mr. Patrice’s office. Mr. Robert

was also present, and he stepped out for a moment. When he returned, he was holding

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 35 of 150

a letter. Mr. Patrice told Mr. Singh that they had spoken with the senators and that his

employment was terminated as of that day. Mr. Patrice gave him the letter of

termination dated December 2, 2015. Mr. Singh read it and left without saying

anything. He walked down the hall with Mr. Patrice, who told him to gather his

personal items and to return his Senate pass and BlackBerry.

Mr. Singh testified that he left the building. He was not well. He went to the

House of Commons to see Pierre Parent, who was the head of Human Resources there.

Mr. Singh showed him a copy of the letter. Mr. Parent reacted in disbelief.

Mr. Singh drove home around noon that day. He broke down and cried. He

called his father. He then went to his room, where he stayed for three to five days. He

wife was worried, especially since he is diabetic. He did not want to tell his three boys

about it, especially since it was just before Christmas.

Mr. Singh said that it was hard on him. He was then 43 years old and a member

of a visible minority group in an EX-02 position that was about to be reclassified EX-03.

He testified that in the federal public sector, no one matched his profile. He insisted

that he always did everything correctly and that he never received a personal favour

from anyone. He indicated that at the time, his ambition was to become a senior

assistant deputy minister if not a deputy minister. Mr. Singh maintained that

everything was taken from him. And all he had done was follow the employer’s

relevant policy.

Mr. Singh testified that two weeks after the termination of his employment,

Senator Furey was newly appointed as Speaker of the Senate. Since Mr. Singh did not

know whether the Standing Committee had been made aware of his situation and the

termination of his employment, on December 14, 2015, Mr. Singh sent a letter to

Speaker Furey about the situation and sent copies of it to the 15 other members of the

Standing Committee (Exhibit G-1, tab 4). No one responded.

Grievance and media coverage

On December 17, 2015, Mr. Singh grieved the Senate’s decision to terminate

his employment.

The Hill Times and the Canadian Press contacted Mr. Singh about the

termination of his employment on the first Monday in January 2016. He said that he

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 36 of 150

did not know how they had obtained his phone number. He testified that they told him

that the Senate had said that he had been terminated for harassment, even for sexual

harassment. He denied the allegations and referred them to his counsel (Exhibit G-3,

tab 2).

On January 6, 2016, the Canadian Press published a story on Mr. Singh (Exhibit

G-3, tab 1). He indicated the he did not want to have his name in public, so he wrote

to the Senate, asked that it respect his privacy, and raised that many senators did

not receive the December 14, 2015, letter. He testified that he had been told that

Mr. Patrice had intercepted the copies of that letter before they reached the

15 senators.

On January 11, 2016, The Hill Times also published an article on the termination

of Mr. Singh’s employment. He pointed out that Jacqui Delaney, who was interviewed,

worked for Senator Housakos and that he did not know Senator Mobina Jaffer, who

was also mentioned in the article (Exhibit G-3, tab 3). The same day, Mr. Singh asked

for a public statement from the Senate to the effect that Mr. Singh had been terminated

without cause. Mr. Singh indicated that no such statement was issued (Exhibit G-3,

tab 4).

The Hill Times published another article on January 18, 2016, still on the subject

of the termination of Mr. Singh’s employment. Among other things, it quoted a

statement emailed by Senator Housakos (Exhibit G-3, tab 5).

As to whether at that time Mr. Singh had received pay in lieu of notice of

termination, as referred to in the January 21, 2016, letter written by the Senate,

Mr. Singh indicated that he received it only on July 21, 2016 (Exhibit G-3, tabs 6 and 7).

Mr. Singh’s efforts to find employment after the termination

Mr. Singh testified that he did not work for all of 2016, despite his efforts.

With his counsel’s help, he prepared for this hearing a table of his job searches for

2016 and 2017 (Exhibit G-3, tab 15). In his testimony, Mr. Singh went over the list of

applications he made and pointed out that he was even prepared to take a position in

Calgary, Alberta, but it did not materialize. He also applied for positions above and

below the EX-02 classification level, such as at the AS-07 and PE-03 groups and levels.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 37 of 150

In February 2017, Mr. Singh landed a contract with the Altis firm as a

consultant. While still looking for employment, he then decided to incorporate and

landed several short contracts in March, April, May, June, and July 2017 (Exhibit G-3,

tabs 15 and 16).

In September 2017, he was hired as a casual with Service Canada for a period of

less than four months at the AS-07 group and level (Exhibit G-3, tab 21).

On February 1, 2018, he was hired on an indeterminate basis with the Canadian

Coast Guard at the AS-07 group and level and still occupies that position. His salary is

at the maximum of the scale since he was hired from outside the public service.

Mr. Singh stated that when he accepted the job, he was desperate. He needed money,

especially with four dependents at home. His credit cards were maxed out. He also

needed it because of the medical insurance that came with it and his need for insulin.

He pointed out that up to February 2018, he did not have medical insurance but

nevertheless had medical bills to pay (Exhibit G-3, tab 13).

Mr. Singh testified that after taking the Coast Guard employment, he continued

to look for other positions.

Mr. Singh pointed out an application he made with the Canadian Food

Inspection Agency. He said that after being asked about his time at the Senate and

informing it that he had been fired because he had made a complaint, the agency

decided not to offer him the position. He stated that he decided not to apply to public-

service positions for the time being. He feels that he is overqualified for most positions

and that we would not be appointed. So, he wants his Senate job back. He could then

apply to other positions should he wish to leave the Senate.

Mr. Singh concluded his testimony by expressing what he views as the lack of

progress the Senate has made in its hiring of visible minorities. He pointed out the

employment equity report that was published when he joined the Senate in 2013 and

the results when he left in 2015. He stressed that only four or five members of visible

minority groups occupied middle-management positions there in 2015-2016 (Exhibit

G-1, tab 11, page 4, and tab 12, page 3).

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 38 of 150

B. For the Senate

Ms. Proulx

Ms. Proulx’s employment background, and Mr. Singh’s arrival at the Senate

Ms. Proulx was the Senate’s first witness. She retired on January 30, 2018. She

was the clerk of the Senate and of the Parliaments from July 2017 until she retired.

Before that, she was the Senate’s chief corporate services officer, which meant that she

was responsible for the Finance and Procurement Directorate, the Human Resources

Directorate, the Communications Directorate, the Information Services Directorate,

and the Internal Audit and Strategic Planning Office (Exhibit G-2, tab 13). As of

her retirement, she had about 38.5 years of experience, including 9 years in

federal-public-service management positions.

In her résumé, Ms. Proulx noted her human-resources experience, notably in

staffing, classification, and organizational design.

Ms. Proulx received a master’s degree in public administration from the

University of Ottawa in 2005, for which her topic was the Senate’s classification

conversion project. She indicated that her time at the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, where she worked on classification and the potential impact of the Universal

Classification System standard, had inspired her to among other things realign Senate

administrative positions and replace specific job descriptions with generic ones.

She submitted that she worked on hundreds of job classification files throughout

her career.

With respect to Mr. Singh’s arrival at the Senate in fall 2013 as part of his

Interchange Canada assignment, Ms. Proulx indicated that at that time, she was the

director of finance and procurement and chief financial officer, and she was involved

only in interviewing him.

On his arrival, Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx were colleagues; they often worked

together and got along very well. According to her, initially, she and Mr. Patrice tried to

help Mr. Singh. Everything was very positive.

Ms. Proulx indicated that she was not involved in any way in the process

of Mr. Singh’s appointment to the position of Director of Human Resources in

January 2015 (Exhibit G-2, tab 9). She could not remember congratulating him in

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 39 of 150

writing or asking him inappropriate questions about his appointment but affirmed

that she told him, “Good for you.”

In cross-examination, she insisted that she had not been involved in his

appointment process, so she could not comment on the reasons that motivated

Speaker Nolin to appoint Mr. Singh. She admitted that Speaker Nolin and Mr. Pleau had

indicated that Mr. Singh was penalized in terms of his salary due to restrictions in the

Interchange Canada assignment (Exhibit G-2, tab 10, page 1).

Notices of intent to appoint

Ms. Proulx testified that in consultation with Legal Services, Ms. Vanikiotis

recommended issuing a notice of intent to appoint Mr. Singh to the position of

Director of Human Resources and that she had agreed with that recommendation

(Exhibit G-2, tabs 10 to 12). According to Ms. Proulx, the notice should have been

issued before Speaker Nolin signed the letter of offer, but since it had already been

signed, she did not think that the letter should be redone.

As for being appointed Chief Corporate Services Officer, Ms. Proulx testified

that although it was announced on January 27, 2015, she received her letter of offer

only on April 27, 2015, retroactive to February 16, 2015. Therefore, she was in

the position on an acting basis but received the delegations needed for it on

February 16, 2015. She indicated that her letter of offer stated that she was to be on

probation for one year, until February 2016. She explained that when she returned

from vacation on January 13, 2015, Mr. Pleau approached her and asked if the position

of Chief Corporate Services Officer interested her. She said that she was interested

even though she did not know the classification or salary. She said that she was not

involved in the discussions that led to an SEG-05 classification, which is equivalent to

EX-05 in the public service.

When she was asked about the notice of intent to appoint Mr. Singh to the

position of Director of Human Resources, Ms. Proulx stated that she had simply agreed

with the proposal of Mr. Patrice and Ms. Vanikiotis but that she had not consulted the

staffing policy (Exhibit G-2, tab 10, and Exhibit G-1, tabs 13 and 14). After reviewing

the staffing guidelines, she maintained that she still agreed with Ms. Vanikiotis’s and

Mr. Patrice’s recommendation that issuing the notice was in fact appropriate (Exhibit

G-1, tab 14, pages 14 and 15).

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 40 of 150

She explained that to her knowledge, a notice of intent to appoint her to the

position of Chief Corporate Services Officer was not issued but that she did not

know at the time, because the person considered for appointment is not copied on

the notice.

In cross-examination, Ms. Proulx agreed that in her case, a notice of intent to

appoint should also have been issued, according to the staffing policy, and that

therefore, it was up to Mr. Singh to explain why it was not done, particularly given that

the topic was relevant at the time because such a notice had just been issued for him.

As for the allegation in the November 24 email that she had received

preferential treatment as her appointment had not been subject to a notice of intent to

appoint, Ms. Proulx insisted that on one hand, the lack of such a notice in her case was

not something positive, and that on the other hand, it had been up to Mr. Singh, as the

director of human resources, to issue one. If she received preferential treatment, it was

at his hands (Exhibit G-1, tab 1, page 3).

As for the probationary period, Ms. Proulx agreed that in her case, had she not

been appointed Chief Corporate Services Officer, she could have returned to her

former position, which had not been filled, but that Mr. Singh would have had a

priority right only because he had resigned from the public service.

Changes to the Senate’s administrative structure

Ms. Proulx testified that in January 2015, Speaker of the Senate Senator Nolin

announced the new administrative structure, overseen by the Executive Committee

composed of the three sector chiefs, Mr. Robert, Mr. Patrice, and her. She agreed that

Mr. Singh worked with Mr. Pleau designing that new structure (Exhibit G-2, tab 13).

She noted that at first in the new context, her relationship with Mr. Singh was

positive. She stated that he had told her and had written down that he was lucky to

have the best of the three members of the Executive Committee as his supervisor

(Exhibit E-1, tab 14). He even went so far as telling her to take things in a relaxed way,

which she found nice (Exhibit E-1, tab 15).

Ms. Proulx testified that in February 2015, the Executive Committee decided to

follow up on a request from senators who had expressed a need for change to the way

things were being administered. However, according to her, the Steering Committee’s

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 41 of 150

instructions were not specific. Rather, the Executive Committee was told to put a

functional and well-organized structure in place.

Ms. Proulx indicated that she and her two colleagues then agreed to a structure

model. She stated that she asked Mr. Singh what needed to be done in terms of

classifying positions, to enable the new structure. When she was questioned as to why

he had not been involved from the outset, she replied that she and her two colleagues

knew the Senate very well, as they had worked there for several years, and that they

wanted to be aligned before deciding on the specifics of the new structure.

In cross-examination, she replied that once the Executive Committee was

satisfied with the new structure, she asked Mr. Singh for the next steps. The committee

then reviewed his proposals. She denied that the affected individuals had been

informed before Mr. Singh of the committee’s decisions and that he was presented

with fait-accompli situations.

As to whether Speaker Nolin asked the three members of the Executive

Committee to consult Mr. Singh on the reorganization issues, Ms. Proulx replied that

Speaker Nolin had just appointed them to the assistant-deputy-minister level and

therefore did not tell them whom to consult. She insisted that the Executive Committee

first required an idea of the desired structure before consulting Mr. Singh.

Issues at the Senate in 2015

In her testimony, Ms. Proulx returned to some issues that the Senate dealt with

in 2015. For example, she emphasized that Mr. O’Brien had not been present as of

January, that the new structure was put in place with the Executive Committee, and

that the high-profile Duffy trial had begun in about March 2015. On that point, she

noted that she had been identified as a witness at that trial because of her past duties

as the director of finance and procurement, which had required significant preparation

from her. In fact, she was called initially as a witness in April 2015 for six consecutive

days. During that period, Speaker Nolin passed away. She was also recalled to the

Duffy trial later, in November 2015.

Ms. Proulx testified that in June 2015, the Senate received the findings of the

Auditor General’s report on its expenses. That report imposed a workload on some

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 42 of 150

Senate committees, for which she was responsible as the person in charge of internal

governance for them.

Federal elections were held in October 2015. In May 2015, Senator Housakos

became Speaker of the Senate and Chair of the Standing Committee. On

November 3, 2015, Ms. Proulx’s father passed away. She returned to work on

November 16, 2015. She had to testify again at the Duffy trial on November 20, 2015.

A new Speech from the Throne was delivered on December 3, 2015, after which

Senator Furey became the new Senate Speaker.

Attending Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings

Ms. Proulx explained that when the new governance structure was put in place,

the senators spoke with the Executive Committee about the presence of roughly 10

directors at Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings.

At Standing Committee meetings, all the directors attended and sat along a wall.

At Steering Committee meetings, Mr. Robert, Mr. Patrice, Mr. Singh, Gérald Lafrenière

director of internal audit and strategic planning, and Ms. Proulx attended, while the

other directors waited in the antechamber to be called, which did not happen often.

Ms. Marga was the Finance and Procurement Directorate’s director on an acting

basis, and according to Ms. Proulx, she never attended a Standing Committee or

Steering Committee meeting. Ms. Proulx stated that the senators found that the three

members of the Executive Committee were experienced and that therefore, there was

no need for the directors to come to the meetings. She stated that the senators were

also concerned about potential leaks of discussions at committee meetings after the

Auditor General’s report was leaked.

According to Ms. Proulx, the new rules were that as of February 2015, only the

member senators and the three members of the Executive Committee would attend

Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings, except for those specifically

invited. For Standing Committee meetings, the chair had to agree to any invitations.

According to her, if a member of the Executive Committee did not know an answer at a

meeting, he or she could be accompanied the following week by a director or manager

(Exhibit G-2, tab 14).

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 43 of 150

Ms. Proulx explained that all the directors were affected and disappointed by

the new directive. Being present at the meetings was also often a way to socialize.

Ms. Proulx acknowledged that as had the three members of the Executive

Committee, Mr. Singh had previously attended all the Steering Committee meetings,

which made the decision harder for him. According to her, he often brought it up. She

testified that she often explained to him the reasons for the senators’ decision. She

admitted that she did not circulate a copy of it because it was sensitive. However, she

maintained that she explained it. She stated that despite the decision to admit

directors only by invitation, she met regularly with her team members, to keep

them informed of discussions that took place at Standing Committee or Steering

Committee meetings.

Ms. Proulx recalled that she attended all Standing Committee and Steering

Committee meetings as part of her duties. She insisted that Mr. Singh was the director

from her sector who, following the February 4, 2015, directive, was invited most often

to those meetings. However, she noted that other directors in her sector, namely,

Ms. Marga and the director of communications, never went to the meetings. As for

Director of Information Services Ms. Bouchard, given the technical nature of the

subject, Ms. Proulx preferred to have her present when necessary.

Ms. Proulx indicated that she presented human-resources briefing notes to the

Standing Committee and Steering Committee, which was done using templates that the

senators had approved in advance. As applicable, a secretariat within Ms. Proulx’s team

requested a briefing note from the director of the sector in question. Ms. Proulx

indicated that although the briefing notes were not signed, she assumed that the

directors in question had reviewed them. Thus, briefing notes were prepared in

advance, and their contents were discussed internally before they were sent to, for

example, the Steering Committee.

Ms. Proulx stated that she never invited an employee of the Human Resources

Directorate to attend any of the meetings without Mr. Singh being informed in advance.

She also maintained that she never asked any of his employees to prepare a briefing

note without his knowledge.

In cross-examination, Ms. Proulx stated that not only did the senators fear that

their discussions would be leaked if too many directors were present but also, they

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 44 of 150

wondered if the directors had better things to do. According to her, this issue was an

irritant for the senators. She indicated that the senators had communicated the

directive to the Executive Committee behind closed doors and that it was included in

minutes that could not be disclosed.

She also explained that with respect to Steering Committee meetings, two or

three directors often waited in the antechamber and were often noisy, which was

an irritant.

According to Ms. Proulx, the senators had advised the Executive Committee that

were one of the three members of the Executive Committee absent from the Standing

Committee or the Steering Committee, he or she could not be replaced. Consequently,

as the clerk of both committees, she was not replaced when she was absent.

According to her, the Executive Committee simply wanted to carry out a

decision made by the Standing Committee and Steering Committee about directors

participating in Senate committees, even though all the directors were disappointed.

She maintained that she explained to Mr. Singh the reasons that the senators supplied

but that he remained unhappy. She agreed that Gerald Lafrenière, Director of Internal

Audit and Strategic Planning at the Senate, had attended a Steering Committee meeting

once to explain a project between February 4 and autumn 2015, but according to her, it

was at the committee’s express request.

She maintained that during that period, Mr. Singh was the director most often

invited to attend Senate meetings, and she denied that Ms. Bouchard had regularly

attended them. She further stated that the Standing Committee and the Steering

Committee did not sit during summer and fall 2015 due to the federal elections. She

testified that she answered the senators’ questions, among others those about human

resources, including different reports, such as one on employment equity.

When she was asked whether Luc Pressault, who became the director of human

resources after Mr. Singh left, attended Standing Committee and Steering Committee

meetings, Ms. Proulx agreed that he did and stated that in fact, new directors had been

invited to attend committee meetings, for training purposes. She explained that in

2016 and at the request of the Chair of the Standing Committee, Mr. Pressault

attended a meeting to explain the content of a report about diversity to the

related subcommittee.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 45 of 150

As to whether Mr. Pressault attended all the Senate’s meetings during his time

as the director of human resources, Ms. Proulx stated that in 2017, she became Clerk

of Parliament, that the Human Resources Directorate then reported to the law clerk

and parliamentary counsel’s sector, and that after Mr. Patrice’s departure, his

replacement was not comfortable with human-resources questions, which explains

Mr. Pressault’s presence at the committee meetings.

As for the minutes of Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings

being available, Ms. Proulx maintained that for example in 2017, they were still not

circulated, except on a need-to-know basis. She testified that she always provided

feedback to the directors involved about briefing notes or committee meetings at her

management meetings or at bilateral meetings with each of her directors. She

maintained that although some discussions from committee meetings could not be

shared, she always informed the relevant director of the gist of them and of the

decision rendered.

According to her, the Executive Committee reviewed briefing notes before they

were sent to the Senate’s committees. If a note had to be changed, the director in

question was informed. She also stated that she prepared summary tables setting out

the outlines of the discussions with the senators and that she shared them with her

directors through her secretariat, which also followed up on topics that the

committees discussed.

Mr. Singh’s letter of offer

Ms. Proulx testified that once an employee filed a grievance after the notice of

intent to appoint Mr. Singh was issued, she had to review the file, with Mr. Bédard’s

help, to respond to the grievance. She indicated that things she saw in the letter of

offer that Mr. Singh prepared surprised her (Exhibit G-2, tab 9). In cross-examination,

she emphasized that the leave-transfer issue had “[translation] jumped out at” her.

Ms. Proulx indicated that on April 2, 2015, she then contacted Mr. Bédard and

Mr. Pleau to find out what had been discussed with Mr. Singh before he prepared the

letter (Exhibit G-2, tab 17). She testified that at that time, Mr. Pleau told her that he had

asked Mr. Singh why he was on an Interchange Canada assignment and why Mr. O’Brien

had not appointed him as the director permanently. Mr. Pleau reportedly also

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 46 of 150

mentioned that he told Mr. Singh to “[translation] take care of it”, referring to the letter

of offer.

Ms. Proulx explained that still on April 2, 2015, she met with Mr. Singh, along

with Mr. Bédard, to gather the facts and make a decision about the grievance.

According to her, Mr. Singh was not pleased at the meeting, and he explained the

circumstances that had led him to prepare his letter of offer.

According to Ms. Proulx, Mr. Singh awarded himself a raise of more than 5%,

while according to the Treasury Board Secretariat’s rules, which the Senate follows, it is

to be 5% without specific authorization otherwise. She submitted that the only other

time this occurred (an increase of more than 5% was granted), an exception request

had been submitted to the Standing Committee, which was not done this time.

In cross-examination, Ms. Proulx acknowledged that Mr. Pleau and

Speaker Nolin, who had about 25 years of Senate experience, signed the letter of offer.

However, she emphasized that the exception to the raise had not been explained to

Speaker Nolin and Mr. Pleau and that they had relied on what Mr. Singh had told them.

According to Ms. Proulx, Mr. Singh should have consulted Ms. Vanikiotis before

preparing the letter.

Ms. Proulx testified that she was not convinced that in reality Mr. Pleau and

Mr. Singh had discussed the probationary period issue, she acknowledged that in her

opinion, this issue was the least serious of the three allegations. According to

Ms. Proulx, the leave-transfer issue was undoubtedly the most important thing.

Ms. Proulx stated that the April 2, 2015, meeting was tense, that Mr. Singh

argued that he should not have been put in that situation, and that Mr. Patrice had not

been required to issue a notice of intent to appoint.

Mr. Singh’s disciplinary hearing and the letter of reprimand

Ms. Proulx testified that on May 5, 2015, she invited Mr. Singh to a disciplinary

hearing to obtain answers and his version of the facts with respect to some things in

his letter of offer that were not compliant with the Senate’s policies. She indicated that

on May 5, she called him to read him the letter inviting him to a disciplinary hearing

and that she then gave it to him personally. According to her, he reportedly told her

that it was all “bullshit” and that she was just repeating what Mr. Patrice told her to

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 47 of 150

say. According to her, he allegedly added that he would no longer speak to Mr. Patrice,

for whom he had “total disrespect”. She said that during the call, she took notes on the

back of the May 5 letter (Exhibit E-1, tab 11). According to her, the disciplinary meeting

took place on May 15, 2015; Mr. Patrice, Mr. Robert, and Mr. Bédard were also present.

Mr. Singh was accompanied by Mr. Desharnais.

Ms. Proulx explained that at that disciplinary meeting, discussed were

Mr. Singh’s salary, his waiving of the probationary period, and the leave transfer.

According to her, he should not have awarded himself a higher salary than allowed or

waived a probationary period. She insisted that the leave transfer was the most

worrisome thing. She maintained that at the Senate, employees have an annual limit on

leave accumulation that must be respected; otherwise, without special authorization,

the leave is paid out. According to her, Mr. Singh showed no remorse at that meeting

and maintained that he would “not answer that”. It ended tensely, with his message

being that the Senate was not a modern employer.

Ms. Proulx testified that on June 1, 2015, the Executive Committee and Mr. Singh

met to discuss the same matter. Mr. Singh then apparently admitted that he did not

know of the leave-transfer policy and expressed remorse, even stating that he would

have been more severe with discipline than the letter of reprimand that the committee

was about to issue to him.

According to Ms. Proulx, on June 12, 2015, the Executive Committee effectively

decided to issue a letter of reprimand to Mr. Singh, who should have informed Mr.

Pleau in January 2015 of the Senate’s policies and their exceptions, which he did not

do (Exhibit G-2, tab 22). She noted the requirements of the “Statement of Values and

Ethics of the Senate Administration” (Exhibit E-1, tab 6). She also referred to the

conflict of interest code for persons employed by the Senate and its policy statement,

which notably prohibits any favourable treatment. According to her, the fact that Mr.

Singh wrote his letter of offer, including favourable terms and conditions of

employment, contravened that code’s requirements. Although Mr. Pleau asked him to

prepare the letter of offer, Mr. Singh should have asked someone else to do it instead

(Exhibit E-1, tabs 7 and 8).

In cross-examination, Ms. Proulx acknowledged that this matter had shaken her,

as the director of human resources had to be her pillar in difficult matters. She also

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 48 of 150

acknowledged that the Executive Committee had considered other discipline, including

termination, but that ultimately, it agreed to issue a letter of reprimand.

Ms. Proulx testified that the Human Resources Directorate was not informed of

the matter because Mr. Singh was the director. The senators were also not informed

because, according to her, it would then have been more difficult for Mr. Singh to work

with them. Therefore, the idea was to not escalate the matter, as Mr. Singh had

expressed remorse.

Ms. Proulx maintained that the idea at the time was to continue working

together, and as the Executive Committee wanted to keep the matter confidential.

Therefore, it was decided to keep the letter of reprimand in Ms. Proulx’s office instead

of putting it on Mr. Singh’s personnel file.

Leadership development program for procedural and legislative clerks

Ms. Proulx stated that the leadership development program for procedural and

legislative clerks was the responsibility of Clerk of the Senate Mr. Robert and that she

had not taken part in its development and was not aware of it until she received an

email about it from Mr. Singh on June 13, 2015 (Exhibit G-2, tab 23). She indicated that

clearly, Mr. Singh was annoyed at not having been involved, but she did not understand

why she was confronted, as she was not aware of the program. She testified that in her

opinion, it meant that there was dissatisfaction between Mr. Singh and Ms. Vanikiotis,

who had told him about the program on the previous day, and that it was up to him to

resolve his differences in his directorate.

Ms. Vanikiotis’s Interchange Canada assignment and sick-leave request

Ms. Proulx stated that on Friday, May 1, 2015, she was informed that

Ms. Vanikiotis was considering a secondment outside the Human Resources

Directorate. Ms. Proulx indicated that she asked Mr. Singh about who could replace her.

According to Ms. Proulx, he then suggested someone who had failed to qualify two

months earlier for a SEN-10 position, which was two levels lower than the manager

position that Ms. Vanikiotis occupied, classified at the MMG-02 level. Ms. Proulx

testified that she then told Mr. Singh that she would speak to Ms. Vanikiotis, who had

not yet made a decision and wanted time to reflect.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 49 of 150

In cross-examination, Ms. Proulx stated that she never told Mr. Singh that she

did not agree with the secondment, even though she had reservations. On May 3, 2015,

she reiterated to him that no decision had been made. Under the circumstances, she

said that she did not understand his response that day (Exhibit G-2, tab 20). She

forwarded his email to Mr. Robert and Mr. Patrice, who replied that they wanted to be

involved (Exhibit E-1, tab 24). According to her, Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert then met

with Ms. Vanikiotis, who in the end decided to remain with the Senate.

In her testimony, Ms. Proulx indicated that in February 2015, she asked

Mr. Singh to be specific about the types of leave requested; for example, whether the

leave was for medical or family reasons. She said that she told all her directors that

they had to comply when reporting leave, in case of an audit.

Ms. Vanikiotis was ill on February 17, 2015, and worked all the same. However,

she did not request sick leave for all the hours that day because she worked for

three of them. Ms. Proulx insisted that she did not understand why Mr. Singh told her

in his email that she was “100% wrong” and reminded her not to talk to his employees

because, on one hand, he had raised the matter with her, not the other way around,

and on the other hand, according to Ms. Proulx, she never discussed the matter with

Ms. Vanikiotis (Exhibit E-1, tab 16).

As to whether Ms. Proulx asked Mr. Singh not to talk to Mr. Patrice, in

cross-examination, she replied that she simply asked Mr. Singh to keep her informed

of any sensitive issues involving senators. She maintained that she never asked

Mr. Patrice not to speak to Mr. Singh and that Mr. Patrice always wanted her involved

(Exhibit G-2, tab 15, and Exhibit E-1, tab 19).

The chief financial officer development program

Ms. Proulx testified that Ms. Marga had replaced her on an acting basis in

her former position as the director of finance and procurement and chief financial

officer. Ms. Marga had informed her that she was not interested in the position were it

permanent. Ms. Proulx said that she approached Mr. Singh, who suggested establishing

a 30- to 42-month phased development plan to allow a candidate to become that next

director, classified SEG-03 (Exhibit G-2, tab 18).

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 50 of 150

Ms. Proulx explained that several people applied. In an email dated

April 8, 2015, Mr. Singh suggested to her that a take-home examination be required.

She indicated that she did not want one and informed him that she preferred that two

of his staffing officers finalize the details of the interview questions. She indicated

that she felt that he had brought the project to where he was supposed to and that

he needed to move on to something else, especially since other files took up a

significant amount of their time during that period, such as the senators’ employee

compensation study.

When she was asked why someone at her level would take the time to

determine whether there should be a take-home examination, when she could have

left it to Mr. Singh’s discretion, Ms. Proulx explained that it was an important file

for her, that as a client she felt that it was important to give her point of view,

and that regardless, it did not take much time to state that she did not like

take-home-type questions.

She also had to explain why she asked Ms. Hubert and Ms. Labelle to handle the

next steps. According to her, she asked that only staffing specialists be involved in the

technical aspect, as the strategy had been developed. She stated that on April 22, 2015,

she left to prepare for the Duffy trial and that after that, she was no longer involved.

According to her, Mr. Singh never indicated to her that he was interested in

being a member of the selection board. However, she acknowledged that he would have

been a good choice, given that three candidates were members of a visible minority

group. She also stated that given the issues, she wanted a public-service chief financial

officer on the board as well as Ms. Marga, who held the position of Director of Finance

and Procurement and Chief Financial Officer on an acting basis.

Ms. Proulx testified that normally, she would have been a member of the

selection board, but that in April 2015, she was very busy preparing for the Duffy trial.

So, she asked Ms. Bouchard to replace her. According to Ms. Proulx, Ms. Bouchard had

no financial experience as such but had about 30 years of work experience, and as the

director of information services, she had to manage very large budgets and was

familiar with financial principles. Ms. Marga and another person with financial

experience from outside the Senate completed the selection board. The board was

made up of two women and one man, and one of them had a physical disability.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 51 of 150

According to Ms. Proulx, Mr. Singh never raised any concerns with the selection

board’s composition.

Ms. Proulx testified that the interviews were held while she testified in the Duffy

trial; that therefore, she had no contact with the board members; and that the board

retained no candidates. She testified that she was disappointed when she returned

after six days of testifying once she was informed that the selection board had not

retained any candidates. According to her, the board was unanimous that no

candidates had the essential skills to take part in the chief financial officer

development program, and it would have been necessary to defy its unanimous

recommendation to select someone, which was not done.

In cross-examination, Ms. Proulx acknowledged that she has no accreditation

in accounting. However, she noted that she has obtained a master’s degree in public

administration and that she was the Chief Financial Officer and Director of Finance

and Procurement at the Senate before being appointed Chief Corporate

Services Officer.

She also acknowledged that she had supervised only one employee at the

executive level, a comptroller, before being appointed Chief Corporate Services Officer.

As for how managing executives compares to that of employees not in executive

positions, Ms. Proulx indicated that directors have their responsibilities and that more

detailed discussions about issues can be held with them. According to her, general

guidance can still be given to directors, and she emphasized that even she, at her level,

also received specific directions.

Proposed changes to the Human Resources Directorate

Ms. Proulx testified that after the shooting on Parliament Hill in fall 2014,

efforts were made to increase Parliamentary protection. Thus, an organizational

structure was desired to support those efforts. The Senate wanted to collaborate. So,

Mr. Nunan, Senior Labour Relations Advisor at that time, was assigned to the project,

initially until March 2016, so he had to be replaced. In that context, in summer 2015,

Mr. Singh presented her with a Human Resources Directorate reorganization proposal

(Exhibit G-2, tabs 24 to 28).

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 52 of 150

Ms. Proulx testified that Mr. Singh proposed many changes during a period she

described as turbulent in the Senate because of the Auditor General’s report on Senate

expenses and the fact that the Human Resources Directorate was to be the next subject

of a functional review. She indicated that given the context, the Human Resources

Directorate reorganization proposals represented many adjustments to respond to the

void created by Mr. Nunan’s departure on secondment. According to her, it all created

much concern, from an operational standpoint. The timing was not right for the

changes. She initially replied to his proposals on June 21, 2015, at 09:03, and again a

few minutes later, at 09:22 (Exhibit G-2, tabs 24 and 25).

Ms. Proulx testified that Mr. Singh then replied to her that she was

micromanaging him and that he had the authority to make the proposed changes as

they were staffing assignments of less than six months, so he did not need her

approval. She challenged those assertions, using Mr. Nunan’s secondment as an

example, which could last nine months, from June 2015 to the end of March 2016.

She also testified that she felt trapped, explaining that Mr. Singh informed her

of his intentions but that he did not want her to comment. She denied simply wanting

to “push back” and insisted on asking questions and receiving answers. Ms. Proulx

stated that she forwarded Mr. Singh’s June 19, 2015, email to Mr. Patrice and

Mr. Robert (Exhibit E-1, tab 25).

Ms. Proulx maintained that despite the delegations of authority, she remained

ultimately responsible and continued to be accountable as the chief corporate services

officer. She stated that she forwarded Mr. Singh’s emails of June 19 and 21, 2015, to

Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert, also on June 21, 2015 (Exhibit E-1, tab 25).

Ms. Proulx testified that after Mr. Singh’s June 19 and 21, 2015, emails, she

realized that her relationship with him had become difficult. She explained that the

email had followed the letter of reprimand issued to him on June 12 and that she

believed that they had turned the page. But given the tone of his email, in which

he accused her of micromanaging him, she saw as follows that the situation

was becoming increasingly difficult and conflictual (Exhibit G-2, tab 25). In his

June 23, 2015, email, Mr. Singh wrote this to her:

Nicole,

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 53 of 150

You are of course, free to do as you wish and given how rarely HR

is invited to speak to the Executive Committee, it will be a novelty.

For clarity purpose [sic], however and for the record, you are

wrong on the next level ….

Ms. Proulx stated that she found that email insulting, sarcastic, inappropriate,

and unprofessional. She indicated that she forwarded it to Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert

since the three of them managed the Senate administration, and they were all involved.

When she was asked about the meaning of “Grrr” in her June 21, 2015, email to

Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert, Ms. Proulx denied that it was an expression of irritation at

Mr. Singh and stated that instead, it was in response to the inconsistencies of some

proposals, such as Mr. Singh’s referral to Mr. Nunan’s secondment sometimes as six

months and other times as nine months. She noted that she had to be consulted on

that type of secondment (Exhibits G-1, tab 17, and G-2, tab 24).

Executive Committee meeting in June 2015

Ms. Proulx stated that Mr. Singh attended the Executive Committee meeting

after her June 22, 2015, invitation and that he made notes in preparation for it (Exhibit

G-2, tab 25). Mr. Robert and Mr. Patrice were also present. It was held in Mr. Robert’s

office, and Ms. Proulx indicated that she took notes (Exhibit G-2, tab 29). According to

her, the meeting was not cordial, and Mr. Singh was not happy; he was tense and

became agitated.

Ms. Proulx said that Mr. Singh again asked why he was no longer invited to

Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings and that the reasons were

reiterated in the presence of her two colleagues. According to her, he said that the

Human Resources Directorate and the Finance and Procurement Directorate were no

longer represented at those meetings, even though she still attended them. She

maintained that he stated that she was not an expert and that she was not qualified to

make human-resources decisions. According to her, his comment applied in general,

not just in the context of meetings with senators. She added that he had insisted that

he speak on the Human Resources Directorate’s behalf. According to her, Mr. Patrice

intervened and told Mr. Singh that she had human-resources experience at the Senate.

In cross-examination, Ms. Proulx agreed that at the meeting, Mr. Singh asked

who should deal with a harassment complaint were one made against one of the three

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 54 of 150

Executive Committee members, but she said that she did not remember Mr. Patrice

saying that one of the other two chiefs would handle it. According to her, under the

circumstances, such a complaint would have to go to the Speaker of the Senate and to

the Steering Committee (Exhibit G-1, tab 16). She also acknowledged that at that time,

Mr. Singh said that he was being treated differently than were the other directors but

did not say that it was because of his racial background.

According to Ms. Proulx, during that meeting, the Executive Committee sought

to determine whether Mr. Singh had a grievance or a harassment complaint. She agreed

that the committee took no action after that meeting and emphasized that normally, it

would have consulted with the Human Resources Directorate but that this time, doing

so was not possible because Mr. Singh was the director of human resources.

The Senate’s compensation study

At that same June 2015 Executive Committee meeting, Mr. Singh reportedly

returned to the Senate’s employee compensation study that had previously been raised

with him in May 2015, at which time he apologized for the tone he used toward

Ms. Proulx (Exhibit E-1, tab 17).

Ms. Proulx explained that the decision to review the compensation of senators’

employees had been made when Mr. O’Brien left and that it was due to be completed in

April 2015. She testified that she had been very involved in a similar conversion and

classification project when she was with the Finance and Procurement Directorate in

2004, and she had seen how difficult it could be. She also mentioned an exercise that

had taken place years before and that had involved severance allowances, which she

had not taken part in; it had proved disastrous.

According to Ms. Proulx, given that the compensation of senators’ employees

was involved, care was required when managing such a project, and no mistakes could

be made, as senators react very quickly when it comes to their employees. According

to her, it was a very important file, to the point that she would have worked on it at

night if required. She indicated that she then asked for someone from the Finance and

Procurement Directorate to work with someone from the Human Resources

Directorate, to ensure that everything was compliant.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 55 of 150

Ms. Proulx testified that she personally reviewed letters to employees as part of

the exercise but that unlike what she had done in 2004, she did not review all of them;

she simply reviewed the form letters. She also maintained that she did not redo the

calculation for each letter.

When she was asked whether in May 2015 and before he was disciplined,

Mr. Singh had noted that she was micromanaging him, Ms. Proulx stated that she did

not remember it being a major issue (Exhibit G-2, tab 21). She agreed that the senators’

employee compensation project had already been underway for a year-and-a-half when

she became the chief corporate services officer and that everything was going well.

However, she noted that given her experience in 2004, she knew the risks of such an

exercise and wanted to ensure that everything ended without any problems. She also

acknowledged making suggestions for the letters after consulting with senators’

employees. She stated that she saw her role as that of a collaborator, and the fact that

she was classified SEG-05 should not have prevented her from ensuring that everything

was compliant.

Still at the June 2015 Executive Committee meeting, Ms. Proulx reiterated the

fact that she had never expected Mr. Singh to be a “yes man” and that instead, she

found that he would have liked her to be a “yes woman”. She challenged the allegation

that she micromanaged and insisted that she felt responsible and that she had to

ensure sound management in her sector.

She also testified that sometimes, she might have spoken with and asked

questions of employees from any of her directorates if, for example, she encountered

them in a hallway. However, she denied going directly to Mr. Singh’s employees

about a matter with which he should have been involved. She indicated that she

had management meetings and bilateral meetings with each of her directors. As to

whether she treated Mr. Singh differently from her other directors, she stated that it

never happened.

Mr. Singh’s 2014-2015 performance appraisal and conference attendance

Ms. Proulx testified that nevertheless, along with Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert,

she decided to award the maximum 10% in incentive pay to Mr. Singh for the entire

2014-2015 fiscal year, even though technically, under the interchange agreement, it

should have been prorated, and Mr. Singh should have received 8% for most of the

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 56 of 150

year, from April 2014 to January 2015 (Exhibit G-2, tab 27). She acknowledged that she

also received the full 10% for April 2014 to January 2015 and that the Steering

Committee made those decisions (Exhibit G-8).

According to Ms. Proulx, the performance appraisal exercise also included

confirming conference attendance. For the Association of Professional Executives

of the Public Service of Canada conference, before he left, Mr. O’Brien approved

Mr. Singh’s request. Ms. Proulx also stated that Mr. O’Brien established a directive that

only two people could attend a conference if travel expenses were involved. She

testified that the Executive Committee changed that directive to allow her, Mr. Singh,

and Ms. Bouchard to attend the Canadian Association of Parliamentary Administration

conference that was to be held outside the National Capital Region.

While Ms. Proulx maintained that Mr. Singh was officially informed at the

same time as Ms. Bouchard that he was also to attend the Canadian Association of

Parliamentary Administration conference, Ms. Proulx also explained that since

Ms. Bouchard was to make a presentation at that conference, she might have been told

that she was to attend the conference before receiving the official confirmation, since

she had to prepare for it. In cross-examination, Ms. Proulx stated that she could not

provide the exact date on which Ms. Bouchard and Mr. Singh were informed that they

would attend. It should be noted that the document entitled, “Appendix C - Travel for

training guidelines (course and conferences)” (Exhibit G-9) was filed after Mr. Singh and

Ms. Proulx testified.

Proposed changes to the Human Resources Directorate (continued)

Ms. Proulx testified that after her discussions with Mr. Singh in summer 2015,

the Human Resources Directorate reorganization issue was raised anew on

September 10, 2015, in his office (Exhibit G-2, tab 30). She testified that she told him

that she still did not agree with his proposals and that her questions were still

unanswered. According to her, he was not pleased. He maintained that he had the

required delegation and that regardless, he reported to the Executive Committee. She

then told him that he reported to her.

According to her, he became agitated during the meeting and indicated that he

would not proceed with the changes, and when she left the office, he apparently told

her that he “did not mean disrespect”. Ms. Proulx testified that Mr. Singh often used

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 57 of 150

that expression as a “caveat” after saying what he meant to say (Exhibit G-2, tab 30).

She testified that she decided to put her concerns in writing, since he had reacted

negatively when they had their discussion and was agitated, and she sent them to him

on September 16, 2015 (Exhibit G-2, tab 31). Ms. Proulx indicated that on that day, they

reviewed the letter together.

In her testimony, Ms. Proulx reviewed the contents of that letter and pointed out

that it also referred to the fact that they had had “difficult exchanges”. In particular,

she stated that since the Senate reorganization, the delegation of powers from the

Standing Committee, which Clerk O’Brien had exercised, now fell to the Executive

Committee. Thus, even though, for example, the Senate’s delegation-of-authority policy

had not yet been changed to reflect the fact that Mr. O’Brien’s position had been split

into three in 2015, it had to be understood that the term “Clerk” in that policy referred

to the three members of the Executive Committee (Exhibit G-1, tab 17).

She also stated that Mr. Singh insisted that he had the required delegations of

authority to make the changes, even though for Mr. Nunan, the secondment could have

been for up to nine months, which was beyond Mr. Singh’s authority.

Ms. Proulx testified that on one hand, she was tempted to agree with Mr. Singh’s

Human Resources Directorate reorganization requests, but that on the other hand,

since she was ultimately responsible as the chief corporate services officer, she could

not bring herself to. According to her, several proposals required clarification, which is

why she had chosen to add an “Appendix A” to her letter of September 16, 2015, to

clearly identify the issues and their responses.

In cross-examination, she acknowledged that once a delegation of authority is

granted, it is rare for the delegator to withdraw it. However, she stated that it is not

rare for the delegator to continue being involved. She also argued that she wanted

answers to her questions.

When she was asked why she felt that Ms. Blais was a better choice than

Ms. Eynoux to replace Mr. Nunan during his secondment, Ms. Proulx explained that

Ms. Eynoux had just joined the Senate, while Ms. Blais had significant labour-relations

experience, and the Senate was in a collective bargaining period. Ms. Blais also used to

be the natural replacement for Mr. Nunan when he was absent. Moreover, according to

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 58 of 150

Ms. Proulx, Ms. Eynoux had just been assigned to Services to Senators and it would not

have been desirable to again make changes that would have affected that area.

When she was asked whether she was more comfortable with Ms. Blais than

Ms. Eynoux, who was classified at a higher level than Ms. Blais, Ms. Proulx agreed

that Ms. Eynoux was classified higher but that Ms. Blais had already qualified at the

MMG-02 level, the level of Mr. Nunan’s position, and had spent more years in the

Senate than Ms. Eynoux, who had just arrived. Ms. Proulx wanted continuity.

She also admitted that she did not consult the résumés of those two persons,

and she agreed that she had spoken to Ms. Blais about replacing Mr. Nunan while he

was on a secondment, but she denied informing her that she would replace Mr. Nunan

on an acting basis.

Ms. Proulx reiterated that she felt that the time might not be right for making

such changes to the Human Resources Directorate given that the directorate was to

undergo a functional review and that therefore, it was best to wait for the results of

that exercise.

Ms. Proulx testified that Mr. Singh replied to the September 16, 2015, letter by

submitting new proposals on the Human Resources Directorate reorganization in an

email dated September 28, 2015. In it, he noted that she had not approved his

“attempt to reorganize the HR Directorate to effectively meet its requirements”

(Exhibit G-2, tab 32).

According to Ms. Proulx, a meeting with Mr. Singh was held on October 1, 2015,

again on the Human Resources Directorate reorganization issue, after which she

emailed him on October 13 (Exhibit G-2, tab 32). She testified that she was still

concerned that with Mr. Nunan’s secondment, if Ms. Blais decided to leave, the Senate

would then have a corporate memory problem as Ms. Blais had always replaced

Mr. Nunan in the past. Ms. Proulx stated that she did not know why Mr. Singh did not

want to at least consider Ms. Blais. According to Ms. Proulx, he never explained why.

When she was asked whether Ms. Blais was a friend, Ms. Proulx replied that

she was a former colleague, that they had had the opportunity to work together on

sensitive files, and that Ms. Blais had done a good job, but that was it. In the past, at

Mr. O’Brien’s request, Ms. Proulx had also been required to work with her on a

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 59 of 150

mediation file. Ms. Proulx testified that Ms. Blais is not a friend; they have never had

social contact.

Ms. Proulx testified that in November 2015, Mr. Singh decided to appoint

Ms. Blais on an acting basis to replace Mr. Nunan (Exhibit G-2, tab 33).

When she was asked about the Human Resources Directorate functional review,

Ms. Proulx replied that it was conducted at the request of the Standing Committee’s

Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and that therefore, it had not been her decision.

The senators, several of whom were from the private sector, had wondered why there

were so many Human Resources Directorate employees. She indicated that the Finance

and Procurement Directorate had undergone a functional review while she was the

director of finance and procurement and chief financial officer.

According to Ms. Proulx, the subcommittee decided to request the Human

Resources Directorate functional review in spring 2015; it took place that fall. She said

that she informed Mr. Singh in June 2015. She testified that later, he began questioning

the reason for such a review.

Ms. Legault’s hiring as the director of finance and procurement and chief

financial officer

Ms. Proulx testified that when she was appointed Chief Corporate Services

Officer, she worked with Ms. Vanikiotis to find a new person for the position of

Director of Finance and Procurement and Chief Financial Officer. Ms. Proulx spoke to

the Comptroller General of the House of Commons, who identified Ms. Legault as a

potential candidate. Ms. Legault had some questions, which she discussed with

Ms. Vanikiotis.

Ms. Proulx said that she then met with Ms. Legault. She had never met her

before. According to Ms. Proulx, the Steering Committee chose Ms. Legault after an

independent firm handled the process.

After the Steering Committee’s decision was made, Ms. Proulx testified that

she spoke with Ms. Legault on October 7, 2015, about the issues with her hiring.

Ms. Legault’s vacation leave was an issue because she was entitled to six weeks per

year with her employer, while the Senate’s limit was five weeks. As well, it was a lateral

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 60 of 150

transfer for her, which meant that the salary remained the same as that offered by

her employer.

According to Ms. Proulx, Mr. Singh apparently suggested to her offering

Ms. Legault one week of management leave per year to make up the difference between

the five and six weeks. Ms. Proulx testified that she did not agree to make such a

promise, particularly because if she were to leave her position of Chief Corporate

Services Officer, the agreement would become difficult to maintain. She indicated that

she preferred a “clean” approach, and finally, she persuaded Ms. Legault to accept the

five weeks of leave with no promises (Exhibit E-7).

The Senate’s main estimates

Ms. Proulx explained that the Standing Committee had delegated to its

Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates the task of reviewing requests for Senate

administration resources. According to her, this subcommittee is official and formal

and has a designated clerk, and requests must be submitted in both official languages

and on a specific timetable. The subcommittee is led by a chairperson who decides

who can intervene during a subcommittee session, and when.

Requests for resources are prepared in each directorate, and the Executive

Committee must decide what will be submitted to the subcommittee. A capsule is used

for each request. Each member of the Executive Committee must be present when

requests from their sectors are submitted.

Ms. Proulx indicated that she attended all the subcommittee’s meetings as

finances were under her sector. As the new person in the position of Director of

Finance and Procurement and Chief Financial Officer, Ms. Legault also attended, even

though she joined the Senate in November 2015 when the process was already

well underway.

Ms. Proulx explained that before the capsules were sent to the subcommittee,

the Finance and Procurement Directorate compiled them, beginning in August. She

testified that in August 2015, in the Centre Block lobby, she told Mr. Singh that she did

not approve the request for additional resources for a “shadow position” for the

Information Services Directorate because although she agreed with the need, she

believed that the expense could be absorbed internally. As for the request for training,

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 61 of 150

a budget was already in place, and the money could have been taken from

another budget.

Ms. Proulx testified that she reminded Mr. Singh of her decision after his

October 30, 2015, email, in which he told her that he was working on the two capsules

(Exhibit E-1, tab 21). She said that she also told him that regardless, given the

upcoming Human Resources Directorate functional review, it would be better to wait

for its results before requesting additional resources. Therefore, she maintained that

she never told him that those requests were approved.

Ms. Proulx indicated that she saw the emails from Mr. Singh’s assistant dated

November 4 and 5, 2015, one day before her return to the office on November 16, as

she had been absent from November 3 to 16 due to her father’s passing (Exhibit G-2,

tab 34). She testified that she had been surprised to see the requests from the Human

Resources Directorate.

Ms. Proulx testified that she went to Mr. Singh’s office on November 16, 2015,

with Ms. Legault. She indicated that there was little time to withdraw the two capsules,

as the Standing Committee’s Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates was scheduled to

meet on December 1, 2015, and she wanted to withdraw them before the

subcommittee members had to review them. Thus, she could not wait for another

discussion with the Executive Committee. She also expected to be called back at any

time to continue her testimony in the Duffy trial.

When she was asked why she did not simply email Mr. Singh instead of going to

his office with Ms. Legault, Ms. Proulx replied that she felt that an email was not

appropriate and that it was more effective to inform him in person. She said that she

did not remember if she had advised him of her visit. She said that she went to the

building containing his office that day because she wanted to take the opportunity to

meet with two of her new employees, including Ms. Legault. Ms. Proulx’s office and

Mr. Singh’s were in different buildings.

She said that she did not fear any “pushback” from Mr. Singh but rather that

she wanted to ensure that things were clear, and she maintained that an email from

her could have led to email responses, which she wanted to avoid. As to whether

Mr. O’Brien ever asked her to withdraw one of her capsules when she was the chief

financial officer, Ms. Proulx replied, “[translation] Oh, yes.”

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 62 of 150

Ms. Proulx denied dancing and holding hands with Ms. Legault when she

showed up at Mr. Singh’s office. She recalled that on one hand, she had returned from

bereavement leave and that on the other hand, she did not know Ms. Legault. She had

met her only once before. According to Ms. Proulx, it was not a happy period in

her life.

Ms. Proulx testified that she asked Mr. Singh why the two capsules were still

there, given that she had already told him that she did not agree with the requests and

that regardless, the resources were already there to cover the needs. She indicated that

he was unhappy at having to withdraw the capsules.

Ms. Proulx indicated that Mr. Singh attended the Standing Committee’s

Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates meeting of December 1, 2015. She testified that

without a doubt, he was asked questions, as were the other directors, which he might

have answered. She stated that she did not answer for him unless a subcommittee

member asked her a question directly and that at no time did she cut Mr. Singh off.

She noted that the formal nature of the subcommittee meant that one had to wait for

the chairperson to assign the floor before intervening. She stated that she did not

remember Mr. Patrice preventing Mr. Singh from answering a question.

Overtime claim

In her testimony, Ms. Proulx made reference to a situation in the past in which

an employee had legitimately requested substantial overtime. According to her,

everyone knew that that person was working long hours. In August 2015, the Executive

Committee decided to request of the Standing Committee’s Subcommittee on the

Senate Estimates that the Senate hire someone to help with the work and to reduce

the overtime.

Ms. Proulx indicated that in the fall of 2015, an auditor from the firm KPMG also

noted the substantial number of overtime hours worked by that employee. Ms. Proulx

testified that she informed the auditor at that time that action had been taken, namely,

the request to hire someone that was made to the Standing Committee’s Subcommittee

on the Senate Estimates, which was to meet in December. According to her, the

situation was shared with the subcommittee, and there was never any intention to hide

anything from the subcommittee.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 63 of 150

Funding French training for the senators’ staff

In her testimony, Ms. Proulx returned to an incident in June 2015, when a

Human Resources Directorate briefing note indicated two options for funding language

training in Saint-Jean for senators’ staff. She explained that she did not understand

why Mr. Singh was irritated about the choice of one option, given that the briefing note

had proposed it and that he had received a copy of the note. She also stated that she

wondered why his email was copied to Mr. Lafrenière, Director of Internal Audit and

Strategic Planning. According to her, by sending a copy to Mr. Lafrenière, Mr. Singh

wanted to suggest that the option chosen was inappropriate. The briefing note was not

adduced in evidence.

Alleged comments against senators

When she was asked about comments that she allegedly made in two different

circumstances against visible-minority senators, Ms. Proulx denied ever using words

such as, “these people”. According to her, she does not use that expression, which is

not part of her language; it is not part of her “DNA” to make such comments about

someone’s race. She maintained that if she did make a comment, it was related to the

actions of the individuals in questions and that the fact that senators in general have

big egos; it was nothing about their race.

The November 24 email

Ms. Proulx testified that she found the November 24 email discouraging and

distressing (Exhibit G-1, tab 1). She stated the following about when she read it:

“[translation] I was stunned.”

According to Ms. Proulx, contrary to the email’s allegations, nothing was ever

hidden from the Standing Committee and the Steering Committee. She maintained

that her approach was to tell them everything and see how they would take the

information. According to her, things were not always rosy in the Steering

Committee as its members were not always happy with the answers, but it was a

matter of credibility, and over time, she had been able to build that credibility with

them. Contrary to the email’s allegations, she also strongly denied not presenting all

options to committees for consideration.

Ms. Proulx stated that her policy was to provide all relevant information and

options in the briefing notes that were submitted for Standing Committee and Steering

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 64 of 150

Committee meetings. According to her, if they rejected or chose an approach, it was

not because they were not informed. She added that this way of doing things, which

was to provide all the information, was a form of security for her.

In her review of the email, among other things, Ms. Proulx maintained that

among her directors, Mr. Singh most often attended Standing Committee and Steering

Committee meetings. She also indicated that she did not understand why he had

written that the rules for hiring Ms. Legault had been changed, given that he had

wanted to waive the rules for annual vacation by providing one week of

additional leave.

Ms. Proulx testified that she then shared the November 24 email with her two

colleagues, Mr. Robert and Mr. Patrice, and stated that she was at the end of her rope.

It was immediately decided that the Human Resources Directorate would

temporarily report to Mr. Robert. Ms. Proulx said that the accusations were very

serious and that since she was involved, she could not be part of the discussions on

the matter. She stated that she was not involved after that.

When she was asked if she had wanted Mr. Singh terminated, Ms. Proulx replied

that she had not. She would have liked them to work together. With respect to the

discrimination allegation, she stated that she had a great deal of difficulty with it and

that it hurt her. She said that she saw it as a personal attack; the accusation was

contrary to her values, and that type of attitude was simply not in her nature. She

maintained that she had never discriminated against anyone. She reiterated the fact

that while she was the director of finance and procurement and chief financial officer,

her directorate had a higher number of employees from equity groups, including

visible-minority employees, than elsewhere.

Ms. Proulx confirmed that around November 25, 2015, she spoke briefly with

Senator Housakos, who told her, “You are out of it; we are going to take care of it.” He

also asked her if there was anything he should know. She then told him that there was

nothing, except that she and Mr. Singh had had difficult exchanges.

Senator Housakos did not tell her that Mr. Singh would be let go. Ms. Proulx said

that she did not give any documents to Senator Housakos or to Mr. Robert and

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 65 of 150

Mr. Patrice. Nor did she comment on the allegations in the November 24 email.

According to her, the Senator never said that there would be an investigation.

Ms. Proulx also stated that it had been hard for her to be suspected of

discrimination and that it was difficult to express how it felt. When she was asked

about the actions that the Senate took against discrimination, she replied that several

efforts were made, such as encouraging self-identification, creating a Standing

Committee subcommittee to deal with employment-equity, and conducting staffing

processes using numbers to ensure that the candidates were assessed anonymously.

She also indicated that the recruiting practice was to go to other organizations

with the idea of trying to recruit candidates from the four equity groups. She also

pointed out that in the end, the Senate is a small organization, and that often, to hire

someone new, someone has to leave.

Mr. Pleau

a. Changes to the Senate’s administrative structure and Mr. Singh’s letter of offer

Mr. Pleau has been working part-time for Senator Claude Carignan since

January 1, 2020. In 2014-2015, he was the chief of staff for the Speaker of the Senate,

who first was Senator Nolin, and then Senator Housakos.

Mr. Pleau indicated that in early 2015, Speaker Nolin, then Chair of the Standing

Committee and the Steering Committee, asked him to set up a new administrative

structure in the Senate to be made up of three sectors, comprising one that would

include everything within the parliamentary domain; one that would include

administrative activities such as human resources, finance, and information services;

and finally, one responsible for legal matters in the Senate.

Mr. Pleau testified that after outlining the new structure, he asked Mr. Singh to

suggest options about it. In that respect, Mr. Pleau indicated that it was up to the Privy

Council Office to decide the level of the positions of the chiefs of the parliamentary

and legal sectors and that for administration, the Speaker of the Senate had decided on

the SG-05 level after involving consultants. None of the three members of the Executive

Committee was involved in the classification decisions.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 66 of 150

Mr. Pleau said that he did not recall whether Mr. Singh had suggested posting a

notice of intent to appoint Ms. Proulx Chief Corporate Services Officer but that

regardless, the decision was made, and he wanted to act quickly.

Mr. Pleau said that he was somewhat acquainted with Mr. Singh. He stated that

he met Mr. Singh in January 2015. Mr. Singh told Mr. Pleau that he was not a regular

Senate employee but instead that he had been under an Interchange Canada

assignment between the School and the Senate for more than 18 months.

Mr. Pleau testified that he told Mr. Singh that he would make his Senate status

permanent and asked him to prepare a letter of offer under the applicable Senate

policies. As for salary, Mr. Pleau indicated that Mr. Singh had told him that he had not

been entitled to the performance bonus because of the terms of the Interchange

Canada assignment. Mr. Pleau stated that he was not aware of the details in the

assignment agreement but that regardless, the salary should have been consistent with

Senate policies.

Mr. Pleau indicated that he did not recall asking Mr. Singh to prepare the letter

by the end of the day, but he acknowledged that he wanted the new structure to be in

place quickly in January 2015.

With respect to Mr. Singh’s assertion that Mr. Pleau told him to put what he

wanted in the letter of offer, Mr. Pleau stated that he had said that “[translation] it had

to be based on Senate policies”. In this respect, Mr. Pleau insisted that words like

“anything you want” do not work for him and that he is more along the lines of “what

I want …”.

With respect specifically to the probationary period, Mr. Pleau stated that

Speaker Nolin and the Steering Committee were of the view that given that Mr. Singh

had been at the Senate for 18 months, he did not need to be subject to another

probationary period.

With respect to the leave transfer, Mr. Pleau stated that it was not discussed and

that in his view, it was precisely one of the things to be done following Senate policies.

According to Mr. Pleau, although Speaker Nolin signed the letter of offer,

Speaker Nolin did not read it carefully, and it was Mr. Singh’s responsibility to ensure

that his letter of offer’s contents were consistent with Senate policies.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 67 of 150

With respect to the fact that Mr. Singh was disciplined for preparing his letter of

offer and its contents, Mr. Pleau indicated that he learned of it after the letter of

reprimand had been issued. He said that he was not happy to learn the issues

surrounding the letter of offer but that at the same time, it all seemed “[translation]

venial and not the end of the world”.

b. Attending Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings

Mr. Pleau testified that he was aware of the decision not to allow directors to

attend Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings other than by invitation

(Exhibit G-2, tab 14). According to him, it was completely unnecessary for the directors

to attend. They could be invited when needed. He was categorical that the decision

came directly from Speaker Nolin and that he and the members of the Standing

Committee fully supported it. Mr. Pleau stated that the decision applied to all directors

from the three sectors.

Mr. Pleau stated that he and the three members of the Executive Committee

agreed on the agenda to be presented to the Standing Committee or the Steering

Committee and that they decided who should be invited. He stated that he attended all

Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings in the first half of 2015.

According to him, Mr. Singh was the director who attended the Steering Committee

meetings most often during that period. As for Standing Committee meetings,

Mr. Pleau stated that not many had been held and that regardless, the three members

of the Executive Committee were always present and could answer questions.

c. The termination of Mr. Singh’s employment

Mr. Pleau submitted that after the November 24 email was sent, he attended a

meeting with Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert. Mr. Pleau indicated that he was not happy

with the decision by Mr. Robert and Mr. Patrice that the Human Resources Directorate

would report to Mr. Robert. According to Mr. Pleau, the decision was up to the

Standing Committee because the administrative structure had been changed, which

required the Committee’s consent.

According to Mr. Pleau, Mr. Patrice spoke of launching an investigation into the

allegations in the email. Mr. Pleau testified that he and Senator Housakos were of the

opinion that an investigation would not change anything in that it was clear from

reading the email that Ms. Proulx and Mr. Singh could no longer work together.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 68 of 150

As for Mr. Singh’s allegations against Ms. Proulx in his email, Mr. Pleau revealed

that he had been stunned, shocked, and surprised to see the falsehoods in it as well as

the emotional barrage directed at Ms. Proulx. Mr. Pleau reiterated that Ms. Proulx did

not make the decision to not allow the directors to attend Standing Committee and

Steering Committee meetings. In addition, he insisted that the Speaker of the Senate

and the Steering Committee decided to request a functional review of the Human

Resources Directorate, not Ms. Proulx, as alleged. According to Mr. Pleau, everyone was

aware of that decision.

With respect to the racial considerations raised in the November 24

email, Mr. Pleau stated that no one had ever made a distinction based on race. He also

stated that he had never received any information to indicate that Ms. Proulx did not

share information with her subordinates.

According to Mr. Pleau, Senator Housakos read the November 24 email. In

consultation with two colleagues, Senator Furey and Senator Wells, it became clear to

Senator Housakos that Ms. Proulx and Mr. Singh could no longer work together.

According to Mr. Pleau, Senator Housakos phoned his two colleagues. All three

concluded that Mr. Singh’s employment was to be terminated without cause. Mr. Pleau

stated that he agreed with that decision, given that Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx could no

longer work together, and that Mr. Singh had distorted reality in the November 24

email.

Mr. Patrice

Mr. Patrice also testified for the Senate. He is the deputy clerk of the House of

Commons. He has been responsible for all corporate services since 2017. Before that,

he was a law clerk and parliamentary counsel in the Senate for many years and was

already in that role when in January 2015, the new administrative structure was

implemented (Exhibits E-1, tab 2, and G-2, tab 13).

a. Mr. Singh’s appointment as the director of human resources

Mr. Patrice testified that he had a very good relationship with Mr. Singh, that he

was a good colleague, and that since they were in the same building and on the same

floor, they saw each other several times a day. Mr. Patrice indicated that he was

pleased for Mr. Singh when he was appointed Director of Human Resources, although

he was not involved in the appointment process.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 69 of 150

As for the decision to post a notice of intent to appoint, Mr. Patrice said that he

relied on Ms. Vanikiotis’s recommendation and that Mr. Singh was not happy that one

was posted (Exhibit G-2, tabs 10 to 12). Mr. Patrice testified that he was not involved in

the decision to not issue a notice of intent to appoint Ms. Proulx Chief Corporate

Services Officer. He also categorically denied asking Ms. Vanikiotis to not issue one for

fear that someone could file a grievance about Ms. Proulx’s early appointment.

b. Attending Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings

With respect to the decision not to allow directors to attend Standing

Committee and Steering Committee meetings unless they were invited, Mr. Patrice

indicated that those committees made that decision because they felt that too many

people attended and that it was a waste of the directors’ time (Exhibit G-2, tab 14).

According to him, the committees’ decision was explained to all the directors,

including Mr. Singh.

Mr. Patrice testified that he attended those meetings from January to June 2015.

According to him, Mr. Singh was invited to the meetings as often as the others were,

but Mr. Patrice never had the record of who attended.

c. Mr. Singh’s disciplinary hearing, and the letter of reprimand

Mr. Patrice indicated that sometime in May 2015, he met with Mr. Singh in the

presence of Ms. Proulx, Mr. Robert, and Mr. Bédard, so that Mr. Singh could provide his

version of the facts of drafting his letter of offer. Mr. Patrice explained that although

he did not agree with the salary that Mr. Singh assigned to himself and the fact that

Mr. Singh had decided to waive the probationary period, in his view, the real issue was

that Mr. Singh had not informed Mr. Pleau of the available options.

With respect to the leave transfer, Mr. Patrice was of the view that it was more

serious, as Mr. Singh had transferred financial obligations from the public service to

the Senate, which was contrary to the Senate’s relevant policy. According to Mr. Patrice,

at the May 2015 meeting, Mr. Singh reportedly said that he was not aware of

that policy.

With respect to the letter of reprimand issued to Mr. Singh on June 12, 2015, as

a disciplinary measure, Mr. Patrice indicated that he agreed with its contents and

argued that Mr. Singh’s fault was that he had not discussed the contents of the letter

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 70 of 150

of offer with his superiors. For Mr. Patrice, when one prepares one’s letter of offer, its

terms must be discussed with one’s supervisor (Exhibit G-2, tab 22).

Mr. Patrice indicated that Mr. Singh had expressed remorse and acknowledged

that he was not aware of the leave-transfer policy. Mr. Patrice stated that Mr. Singh was

pleased to see that the sanction was only a letter of reprimand, and he even said,

“I would have fired myself.”

d. The relationship between Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx

Mr. Patrice testified that the relationship between Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx was

not very good and that Mr. Singh sometimes came to see him to discuss a matter

without going through Ms. Proulx first. That resulted in her sometimes being unaware

of certain issues. Mr. Patrice testified that he had to regularly remind Mr. Singh to first

inform Ms. Proulx (Exhibit E-1, tabs 15 and 19). According to Mr. Patrice, although

Mr. Singh could always talk to him, Mr. Singh had to talk to Ms. Proulx first, especially

on human-resources files that could have an impact. Mr. Patrice testified that being of

a patient nature, he often had to remind Mr. Singh to go through Ms. Proulx on a

given subject.

e. Ms. Vanikiotis’s Interchange Canada assignment

Mr. Patrice testified that when he and Mr. Robert learned that Ms. Vanikiotis

was considering an assignment outside the Senate through an Interchange Canada

assignment, they wanted to talk to her to convince her to stay at the Senate. According

to him, Ms. Vanikiotis had experience and corporate memory of the Senate’s activities;

it would have been a shame had she left. After speaking with him and Mr. Robert,

Ms. Vanikiotis decided to remain at the Senate. According to Mr. Patrice, there was

tension between Ms. Vanikiotis and Mr. Singh (Exhibit G-2, tab 20).

f. Proposed changes to the Human Resources Directorate

Mr. Patrice testified that he was aware that Mr. Singh wanted to reorganize the

Human Resources Directorate and that Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx had differences of

opinion (Exhibit E-1, tab 25). Mr. Patrice indicated that he understood some of

Ms. Proulx’s concerns about Mr. Singh’s proposals. He also indicated that Mr. Singh and

Ms. Proulx had tension and that he counselled them to dialogue. Mr. Patrice explained

that Mr. Singh had to make his decisions in the organization’s best interests. As for the

reference to “regain trust” in Mr. Patrice’s June 21, 2015, email to Ms. Proulx and

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 71 of 150

Mr. Robert, he explained that those discussions with Mr. Singh took place in June 2015,

just after Mr. Singh received the letter of reprimand (Exhibit E-1, tab 25).

g. Micromanagement

When he was asked whether Ms. Proulx micromanaged Mr. Singh, Mr. Patrice

indicated that it was a matter of style and perspective. According to him, Ms. Proulx

wanted to be informed. He stated that her management style differed from

Mr. O’Brien’s and that indeed, she was more involved in the areas for which she was

responsible. The organizational structure during Mr. O’Brien’s time had several sectors

reporting to him, so he was less involved.

With respect to Mr. Singh’s alleged discussion with the Executive Committee in

August 2015 in which the issue was raised of who was to deal with a harassment

complaint against a member of that committee, Mr. Patrice was categorical that he

stated at that time that it would be the Steering Committee and not one of the other

two members of the Executive Committee who would handle such a complaint.

Mr. Patrice testified that at that same meeting, he reacted to Mr. Singh’s

assertion that Ms. Proulx was not qualified to speak on behalf of the Human Resources

Directorate. Mr. Patrice said that he told Mr. Singh that Ms. Proulx had made a career in

human resources, so Mr. Singh could not say that she was unqualified. According to

Mr. Patrice, Mr. Singh’s assertion was general and not a reference to situations

involving only the Standing Committee and the Steering Committee (Exhibit G-2,

tab 29).

h. The Senate’s main estimates

Mr. Patrice testified that he is always present with his directors at the meetings

of the Standing Committee’s Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates, at which the

sectors request additional resources for the coming year. He stated that he attended

the December 2015 meeting, as did Mr. Singh.

According to Mr. Patrice, a senator asked Mr. Singh a question, and he answered.

Mr. Patrice denied that he prevented Mr. Singh from answering or that he touched

Mr. Singh’s arm to prevent him from answering. Mr. Patrice also stated that he did not

recall whether Ms. Proulx answered in Mr. Singh’s place or interrupted him. According

to Mr. Patrice, both Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx answered the questions.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 72 of 150

As to whether he had ever heard Ms. Proulx refer to non-Caucasian senators

as “these people”, Mr. Patrice said that he had never heard any such thing.

Returning to an incident in which the employment of an employee in

Mr. Patrice’s sector had allegedly been terminated, Mr. Patrice explained that he had

heard of some issues in one of his directorates and that he had asked Mr. Singh to

carry out a “workplace assessment” of the situation.

According to Mr. Patrice, the employee at issue had also made a complaint

against her supervisor and had been the subject of much more serious allegations.

Although some parts of the complaint against the supervisor were substantiated,

nevertheless, the facts were much less serious than the employee had alleged. In the

circumstances, Mr. Patrice stated that the decision had been made to terminate the

employee’s employment and to orally reprimand the supervisor.

According to Mr. Patrice, Mr. Singh was consulted throughout the matter, and he

agreed with the decision to terminate the employee’s employment, but instead, he

would have given her a lump sum. Mr.Patrice insisted that the employee’s offences

were serious and that they did not compare to the one committed by the director who

yelled at the employee, which explained the difference between the two responses.

i. The November 24 email

Mr. Patrice testified that Ms. Proulx forwarded him the November 24 email. He

said that he was surprised and shocked by its allegations. According to him, it was the

first time Mr. Singh claimed to be a victim of racism.

Mr. Patrice indicated that he and Mr. Robert then decided that the Human

Resources Directorate would report to Mr. Robert for the immediate future and that

they would inform the Steering Committee of the situation.

Mr. Patrice testified that contrary to Mr. Singh’s allegation, the Executive

Committee always consulted the Human Resources Directorate before making

decisions. With respect to the “workplace assessment” situation referred to on page 3

of the email, Mr. Patrice indicated that it was the matter mentioned earlier, in which an

employee’s employment was terminated. According to Mr. Patrice, the Executive

Committee made the decision. He said that he was surprised to see it referenced in

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 73 of 150

Mr. Singh’s email. In short, Mr. Patrice testified that he did not understand why

Mr. Singh said that the Human Resources Directorate had not been consulted.

Mr. Patrice indicated that he and Mr. Robert met with Mr. Singh the next day.

At that time, they told him that the Human Resources Directorate would report

temporarily to Mr. Robert and that they would recommend to the Steering Committee

that an investigation be initiated under the harassment policy.

Mr. Patrice insisted that contrary to what was stated in Mr. Singh’s

November 26, 2015, email, he and Mr. Robert had in fact said that they would

recommend an investigation to the Steering Committee, not that there would be one

(Exhibit G-1, tab 2). According to Mr. Patrice, the Steering Committee had to decide

whether an investigation would be launched. Mr. Patrice pointed out that Mr. Singh was

surprised that Ms. Proulx shared the November 24 email with her two colleagues on

the Executive Committee. According to Mr. Singh, it was a private email.

j. The termination of Mr. Singh’s employment

Mr. Patrice testified that he and Mr. Robert reported to the Steering Committee

and that they recommended launching an investigation under the harassment policy.

According to him, Senators Housakos, Wells, and Furey reviewed the November 24

email and concluded that some of the things that Ms. Proulx was accused of in it had

resulted from their decisions, not hers. They then instructed Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert

to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment.

Mr. Patrice indicated that Mr. Robert signed the letter of termination as he was

Mr. Singh’s supervisor at that time (Exhibit G-1, tab 3). Mr. Patrice testified that he and

Mr. Robert gave the letter of termination to Mr. Singh and that given the circumstances,

things went relatively well. Mr. Patrice testified that he was of the opinion that as a

result of the November 24 email, there was no possibility of reconciliation between

Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx.

With respect to the letters that Mr. Singh’s lawyer sent to the members of the

Standing Committee, Mr. Patrice indicated that he had been called by Senator Furey,

who had become the Speaker of the Senate and the chair of the Standing Committee on

December 4, 2015. Speaker Furey gave him the letters and asked that Mr. Singh’s

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 74 of 150

lawyer contact the Senate’s lawyer on the matter, which Mr. Patrice carried out (Exhibit

G-1, tab 4).

With respect to the newspaper articles commenting on the termination of

Mr. Singh’s employment, Mr. Patrice stated that the Senate’s policy was to not

comment on personal matters (Exhibit G-3, tab 6). He maintained that he was not

aware that anyone in the Senate had commented to the media on the termination of

Mr. Singh’s employment.

Senator Housakos

Senator Housakos was the Senate’s last witness. He was appointed to the Senate

in 2009. He was the Deputy Speaker of the Senate when Senator Nolin was the Speaker.

Following Speaker Nolin’s death, Senator Housakos was appointed as the Speaker from

May to December 3, 2015. He was also the Chair of the Standing Committee and the

Steering Committee.

a. Changes to the Senate’s administrative structure

Senator Housakos explained that in 2015, under the leadership of

Speaker Nolin, who had initiated them, the Senate went through important structural

changes because, according to Senator Housakos, senators were worried that things

were happening and that Senate employees were making decisions without the

senators being made aware of them.

Therefore, in early 2015, the decision was made to create the Executive

Committee comprising the senior managers in charge of the three sectors: the Clerk of

the Senate and the Clerk of the Parliaments under Mr. Robert, the Law Clerk and

Parliamentary Counsel under Mr. Patrice, and the office of the Chief, Corporate

Services, under Ms. Proulx’s supervision.

Senator Housakos explained that since senators are accountable for the

administration of the Senate, when he was appointed the Speaker of the Senate, he was

very hands-on with respect to subjects such as human resources and finance. He

stated that he had no choice but to become more involved since the Senate went

though some difficult times, such as the expenses scandal. That is why he decided to

closely micromanage the Senate’s administration, which meant that he interacted

regularly with the Executive Committee.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 75 of 150

It also meant continuing what Speaker Nolin had started, which was meeting

with every sector and visiting all Senate employees to give them the message that the

senators wanted to be more involved in the administration of the Senate and that he

had an open-door policy. Senator Housakos indicated that he wanted the Senate to be

open and transparent. He insisted that if senators were to be held accountable and

responsible for mistakes in the administration of the Senate, they needed to be aware

of what was going on. The way to do that was to work with staff.

Senator Housakos testified that many times, he also interacted sometimes

formally and sometimes not with Mr. Singh, who visited him when he was appointed

the Speaker of the Senate. Senator Housakos said that he was counting on Mr. Singh.

He testified that he sought Mr. Singh’s opinions on issues like when a chief financial

officer had to be hired to replace Ms. Proulx or when the Senate was looking for a

new director of communications. Senator Housakos pointed out that he probably

spent something like 10 hours with Mr. Singh during those two processes.

Senator Housakos’s colleagues, Senators Wells and Furey, who were also members of

the Steering Committee, also dealt with Mr. Singh. Senator Housakos described his

relationship with Mr. Singh as cordial and professional. There were no issues.

b. The termination of Mr. Singh’s employment

Senator Housakos testified that on November 24 or 25, 2015, Mr. Patrice and

Mr. Robert came to see him and showed him the November 24 email (Exhibit G-1, tab

1). Senator Housakos said that he was “flabbergasted” when he read it. He explained

that four things in it caused him problems.

Firstly, Senator Housakos said that he was troubled by the allegation that

Mr. Singh had no “proximity” with the Steering Committee, which Senator Housakos

said was false.

Secondly, Mr. Singh stated that the Standing Committee and the Steering

Committee were not receiving information. Senator Housakos stated that for him, this

affirmation was troublesome and a big concern. He pointed out that if it were so,

meaning that if Mr. Singh was aware of information that should have been brought to

the attention of the Standing Committee and the Steering Committee and he did not

bring it to Senator Housakos’s attention, it in itself would have been a “reason to

fire him”.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 76 of 150

Thirdly, Senator Housakos also took aim at Mr. Singh questioning the need for

and attributing to Ms. Proulx the decision to launch a functional review of the

Human Resources Directorate. Senator Housakos qualified Mr. Singh’s allegation as

preposterous and insisted that the Steering Committee had made that decision. He

pointed out that the Senate had already reviewed the Communications Directorate and

that it wanted to do the same for the Human Resources Directorate. Senator Housakos

insisted that Mr. Singh’s allegation was not true and maintained that the senators

made the decision, not Ms. Proulx.

Fourthly, Senator Housakos explained that he investigated the allegation that

Ms. Proulx was racist, which he concluded was simply unfounded. He indicated that he

examined the November 24 email and concluded that Mr. Singh had given the Senate

an ultimatum; he had drawn a line in the sand. Therefore, the Senate was forced to act.

Still commenting on the email’s allegations, Senator Housakos testified that

there was no indication that senators were not receiving all the information from the

Executive Committee members or that the information they received was not exact. He

stressed the fact that it was clear to everyone that the senators would not tolerate

inaccurate information.

As for Mr. Singh not being invited to Standing Committee or Steering Committee

meetings, Senator Housakos insisted that the decision to not have all directors

attend had been the senators’ decisions and not that of Ms. Proulx. He explained

that having all the directors present was a waste of taxpayers’ money. He specified

that directors could still attend but only if they were invited and were needed.

Senator Housakos recalled that Mr. Singh attended a couple of times after

February 2015. Senator Housakos insisted that Mr. Singh’s insinuation was false that

Ms. Proulx tried to create a barrier between him and the senators.

As for Mr. Singh’s request that the Human Resources Directorate report to

someone other than Ms. Proulx, Senator Housakos commented that doing so would

have been unacceptable. He testified that Mr. Singh “wanted us to pick him over her”.

As for Mr. Singh’s discrimination allegations against Ms. Proulx,

Senator Housakos pointed out that he is also part of a minority group, being the son of

immigrants, and that he is sensitive to discrimination issues. He indicated that he

brought the allegation to Senators Wells and Furey and to about a dozen other

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 77 of 150

Caucasian senators who knew Ms. Proulx. Senator Housakos pointed out that some of

those senators did not even like Ms. Proulx. However, they all found that there was no

merit to the discrimination allegations against her. Senator Housakos insisted that it

was important for him to talk to senators who knew Ms. Proulx and who could

comment on the allegations. He also phoned some middle managers, including

someone senior in the Human Resources Directorate. Senator Housakos insisted that

everyone he spoke to reported that there was no merit in the discrimination

allegations against Ms. Proulx.

Senator Housakos testified that in his opinion, Mr. Singh did not accept the

fact that the senators made changes to the Human Resources Directorate reporting

structure. Senator Housakos testified that in this context, he told Mr. Patrice and

Mr. Robert that given the content of the November 24 email, he did not see how a

mediator could make a difference. In his view, Mr. Singh was unwilling to report to

Ms. Proulx.

Senator Housakos indicated that he and his colleagues, Senators Wells and

Furey, were also perplexed that Mr. Singh had never said anything about it. He stated

that if there was an issue, Mr. Singh should have raised it with one of the senators,

since after all, he was the director of human resources. He did not raise one.

Senator Housakos testified that for him, the only issue that needed investigating

was the discrimination allegation against Ms. Proulx. Senator Housakos testified that

he did look into it and that after talking to a dozen senators and managers, he was

comfortable that it had no merit. He maintained that had there been any doubt that

discrimination or racism had occurred, he would have ordered a full investigation. But

it was not the case.

Senator Housakos maintained that Mr. Singh was neither hired nor terminated

because of his race.

Senator Housakos testified that two days after meeting with Mr. Patrice. and Mr.

Robert, and after he had spoken to Senators Wells and Furey and other senators and

Senate managers, he met again with Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert. He told them about the

decision to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 78 of 150

Senator Housakos indicated that he did not speak to Ms. Proulx about the

decision. He said that it was shared in private with Standing Committee members a

week later.

In his testimony, Senator Housakos agreed that every time he interacted with

Mr. Singh, it was cordial; he had no complaints, and Mr. Singh did a good job. However,

he pointed out that after the November 24 email, he had concerns.

When he was questioned about whether Ms. Proulx presented human-resources

issues to the senators without Mr. Singh’s knowledge, Senator Housakos responded

that he did not recall Ms. Proulx doing that. He also pointed out that during his

six-month tenure as Speaker of the Senate, human resources was not really a “hot

topic”. It involved mostly day-to-day matters that did not take much of the time of

the committees.

Senator Housakos indicated that if Mr. Singh had some issues, he never asked to

see the senators about them; nor did he write to them. Senator Housakos expressed

the view that Mr. Singh had had 18 months to raise any matter he thought was an issue

but that he did not, despite the facts that the senators had clearly indicated to the

administration employees that they wanted to be involved and that after all, Mr. Singh

was the HR director.

Senator Housakos stated that while the Senate had no whistle-blowing policy,

nevertheless, senators received envelopes under their doors about all manner of

issues. He stated that many employees did that, including some HR employees. He

insisted that because Mr. Singh was the HR director and in charge, if an issue appeared,

it was up to him to raise it.

When he was questioned about the November 25, 2015, meeting and

whether Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert wanted the November 24 email investigated,

Senator Housakos said that they suggested that a mediator or arbitrator be appointed

to examine the issue. He maintained that only one important allegation was made,

since the others were clearly baseless. It alleged that Ms. Proulx had discriminated

against Mr. Singh based on race.

In Senator Housakos’s view, the three other allegations were “nonsense” and

“stupid”. He indicated that an investigation was an option. However, since he did not

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 79 of 150

want to waste time with the three allegations, he told Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert that

he would look into the racism one.

Senator Housakos testified that in his view, Mr. Singh made an ultimatum in the

November 24 email. They had to choose between him and Ms. Proulx. In his mind,

Mr. Singh was unwilling to report to Ms. Proulx. Senator Housakos admitted that

unconscious bias is possible and that the way to get around it is with training and by

reviewing the practices in place. In his view, there is no discriminatory bias at the

Senate but admitted that it could do more.

Senator Housakos testified that he and Senators Wells and Furey made the

decision to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment about four days after the November 24

email. Senator Housakos agreed that Mr. Singh was terminated without cause and not

for insubordination or harassment. He also agreed that only eight months later did

Mr. Singh receive three months of pay in lieu of a termination notice, which was

mentioned in the letter of termination (Exhibits G-10 and G-1, tab 3).

Senator Housakos maintained that once Mr. Singh received the letter of

termination, the matter was between counsel, that the Senate did not contact the

media about it, and that per its policy, the Senate did not comment to the media about

Human Resources matters. Senator Housakos indicated that as noted in the last

paragraph of Mr. Patrice’s January 6, 2016, email to senators, such issues should be

addressed by a tribunal and not in the media (Exhibit G-3, tab 6).

IV. Summary of the arguments

A. For Mr. Singh

Mr. Singh pointed out that this is a unique regime in which he both could grieve

the termination of his employment under the PESRA and be covered by the protection

of the CHRA.

Mr. Singh reiterated that he was not challenging the Senate’s right to

terminate his employment on notice or payment in lieu of notice. Mr. Singh indicated

that instead, he relied on the CHRA provisions that provide all the necessary

protection and redress, including his right to reinstatement into his old position and to

receive damages.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 80 of 150

1. Overview

Mr. Singh reviewed the facts of his Senate employment and of the termination.

He stated that he was 43 years old when his employment was terminated. He was a

level 2 executive, is fluently bilingual, is a member of a visible minority group, and was

on a steady upward trajectory. Mr. Singh pointed out that as of the termination of his

employment, he was the first and only visible minority among some 12 other directors.

He also stressed the fact that to this day, there is no other visible-minority director at

the Senate.

Mr. Singh maintained that during his employment with the Senate, he was

treated adversely and in a differential manner by his superior, Ms. Proulx, and that

when he raised the matter, he was promised that his complaint would be investigated

per the harassment policy. Instead, the Senate abruptly terminated him, and only eight

months later did he receive his pay in lieu of a notice of termination. According to

Mr. Singh, even though the Senate clearly terminated his employment without cause, it

chose to give the impression that it had been for cause.

Mr. Singh stated that the Filion report, prepared before he was hired, clearly

contained very good reviews of his abilities. The evidence also demonstrated that

Mr. Singh did a good job as the director of human resources. His performance was

good and was viewed as such by Speaker Nolin and all the witnesses. He received the

maximum performance bonus.

Unfortunately, his career is now diminished because of the wrongful actions of

the Senate, which were done in bad faith. Mr. Singh is now almost 50 years old and is

3 levels down in terms of employment compared to when he joined the Senate at the

end of 2013. Mr. Singh maintained that the treatment he was subject to during his

Senate employment was carried out in bad faith and violated his CHRA rights.

As for remedy, Mr. Singh submitted that he should be reinstated into his

position, with back pay. In addition, Mr. Singh asked that he receive appropriate

damages under the CHRA as well as under common law to cover the infringement of

his human rights and the bad-faith treatment as well as aggravated damages for harm

to his reputation, additional mental distress, and harm to his dignity.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 81 of 150

2. Jurisdiction and remedial authority

Mr. Singh insisted that the CHRA is quasi-constitutional legislation and that the

Senate is not above the law. With respect to jurisdiction and remedy, Mr. Singh referred

me to ss. 68(2) and (4) of the PESRA as well as to s. 53 of the CHRA, which provides for

reintegrating a person who was terminated in violation of that Act.

He also referred me to Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, 2005 SCC 30 at

paras. 82 and 88, in which the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the CHRA

applies to the Senate and that under the PESRA, an adjudicator can order

reinstatement. The details of the requested remedies will be dealt with later in

this decision.

3. Discrimination

In his argument, Mr. Singh argued that these three distinct acts of

discrimination are at issue:

1) differential treatment and harassment of him by Ms. Proulx and the Senate,

contrary to ss. 7 and 14 of the CHRA;

2) failure to investigate the racial discrimination allegations, contrary to ss. 7 and

10 of the CHRA; and

3) termination of employment for raising the racial discrimination allegations,

contrary to ss. 7 and 14 of the CHRA.

a. Differential treatment and harassment of Mr. Singh by Ms. Proulx and the Senate

Mr. Singh reviewed the facts of his arrival at the Senate in 2013. He was then

classified EX-01. Mr. Singh stressed the fact that the Filion report indicated that

Mr. Singh had strong leadership skills and that he exceeded expectations as an ethical

leader (Exhibit G-2, tab 2). Mr. Singh pointed out that while he was an EX-01 at the

School, the position with the Senate was at the SEG-02 or EX-02 group and level.

Mr. Singh also mentioned that the Senate’s selection board, which included

Ms. Proulx, underlined the fact that he had deep human-resources knowledge

(Exhibit G-2, tab 3). Mr. Singh stated that clearly, he was a high-performing executive

when he joined the Senate. Mr. Singh indicated that all this is important, especially

since when considering how a high performer like him was treated, one may draw only

one inference, which is that discrimination played a role in how Ms. Proulx dealt

with him.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 82 of 150

Mr. Singh added that during his employment search after the termination of

his employment, he encountered problems, certainly not because of his good

professional background but rather because of the media coverage and rumours

about the termination.

Mr. Singh also stressed that the relationship could have improved between him

and Ms. Proulx had the Senate simply resorted to a third party, like a mediator, to try

to solve their conflict. Instead, it chose to terminate his employment without looking at

other means of resolution.

According to Mr. Singh, he continually tried to get Ms. Proulx to agree that

something should be done. Unfortunately, she turned him down.

Looking back at his arrival at the Senate, when he first reported to Mr. O’Brien,

Mr. Singh said that he fit well in his new environment. Mr. Singh had good

relationships with everyone. He had a staff of 20 to 25 employees. Bilateral meetings

with Mr. O’Brien were rare; Mr. O’Brien let him do his job. Mr. Singh also received a

good performance review and comments from Mr. O’Brien for the period from April to

October 2014 as well as the maximum performance bonus he was entitled to (Exhibit

G-2, tab 8).

Mr. Singh pointed out that during his first year with the Senate, he

attended Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings, at which he had

the opportunity to discuss human-resources matters directly with members of

those committees.

Mr. Singh indicated that the Speaker of the Senate, at the time Senator Nolin,

invited Mr. Singh to discuss the new administrative structure that would be put in

place. Mr. Singh stated that clearly, Speaker Nolin trusted him.

Mr. Singh reviewed the facts of the drafting of his letter of offer. Mr. Singh

stated that in January 2015, he met with Mr. Pleau, who was surprised that Mr. Singh

was not a permanent employee of the Senate. Mr. Pleau wanted Mr. Singh to draft a

letter of offer that day. Mr. Singh said that they did not discuss vacation or

probation but that they talked about salary. Mr. Singh insisted that he simply followed

instructions. The Steering Committee approved the letter on January 14, 2015.

Speaker Nolin signed it (Exhibit G-2, tab 9).

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 83 of 150

When addressing the issue of the letter of reprimand that was imposed on him

for the letter of offer, Mr. Singh maintained that the discipline imposed was

disproportional and harsh. Mr. Singh insisted that it was clearly a mistake and that

when he saw the leave-transfer policy, he admitted his error. So, Mr. Singh questioned

why after that, he was treated deeply suspiciously and as if he was dishonest. For

Mr. Singh, the language in Mr. Pleau’s email of January 20, 2015, is evidence of what

was on Speaker Nolin’s mind when he signed the letter (Exhibit G-2, tab 10).

Mr. Singh returned to the fact that Ms. Proulx did not congratulate him after

his appointment was announced and that she thought there should have been a

competition for his position. For Mr. Singh, things started to go downhill after that. It

shows not only that she was suspicious but also that while there is often no direct

evidence of discrimination, nevertheless, there is unconscious discrimination, in that

people follows stereotypes. She was immediately suspicious of her Director of Human

Resources despite the fact that he had a stellar background.

For Mr. Singh, appointing him in the way it was done was the reasonable thing

to do. Ms. Proulx should have taken the time, without bias, to recognize that. Mr. Singh

stated that he was hurt by her attitude; he could feel it. Mr. Singh indicated that people

of colour can sense that something is going on.

As for whether the notice of intent to appoint Mr. Singh should have been

issued, he insisted that the entire issue is troubling. First, Mr. Singh expressed the view

that there was no need for one (Exhibit G-1, tab 14). Moreover, he pointed out that it is

curious that 20 minutes or so after he resigned from the public service, the notice was

out (Exhibit G-2, tabs 11 and 12). So, if the grievance against Mr. Singh’s appointment

had been successful, he could have been out of a job, since he had resigned from the

public service.

Mr. Singh stressed the fact that while there was a need for a notice to appoint

for him, there was none when Ms. Proulx was appointed Chief Corporate Services

Officer. Mr. Singh indicated that it has been agreed that one should have been issued

for Ms. Proulx’s appointment. Therefore, clearly, there was different treatment. Despite

the fact that Ms. Proulx testified that she did not know if one had been issued in her

case, which Mr. Singh found doubtful, and that Mr. Patrice denied telling Mr. Singh not

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 84 of 150

to issue one, Mr. Singh urged me to conclude that after five years, Mr. Patrice might

have forgotten that he asked Mr. Singh to not issue one for Ms. Proulx’s appointment.

Commenting of the decision to exclude the directors from Standing Committee

and Steering Committee meetings, Mr. Singh stated that given the evidence, it is now

known that the committees made it. Nevertheless, Mr. Singh questioned why that was

not clearly communicated to him, and he continued to ask for an explanation. Mr.

Singh stated that Ms. Proulx chose to act as a gatekeeper, which meant that he was

invited to those meetings only a few times up to June 2015. That was demeaning for

him; he felt worthless. After June, he was never invited again.

Mr. Singh indicated that it is surprising that no human-resources subjects were

discussed at either Standing Committee or Steering Committee meetings for five

months (Exhibit G-2, tab 26). As to how often he appeared at those meetings compared

to Ms. Bouchard or Mr. Lafrenière, Mr. Singh referred me to his testimony, in which he

stated that it seemed like everyone went, except for him.

Mr. Singh indicated that he was concerned that some human-resources issues

were not addressed and that instead of discussing it, Ms. Proulx chose to keep him in

the dark. She could have let him present some human-resources reports to the

committees. She preferred to do it herself or to have Mr. Singh’s managers present

them, without his knowledge (Exhibit G-2, tab 21).

According to Mr. Singh, Ms. Proulx did not compromise one iota about that

issue. He asked how a visible minority would feel about that, especially in his context,

as he was the only visible minority at the executive level in the Senate. As a senior

executive, Ms. Proulx should have understood that. According to Mr. Singh, he

perceived it as being treated differently. While he did not then say that it was

discrimination, nevertheless, he questioned why Ms. Bouchard was allowed to

attend those meetings and not him. He was treated differently. He also wrote in his

pre-meeting notes in June 2015 that he was being treated differently. He referred to

the fact that Ms. Proulx was hiring French Canadians, like her (Exhibit G-2, tabs 21

and 26).

Mr. Singh also asked why, in 2016, Mr. Pressault was allowed to present to the

committees after Mr. Singh’s departure. Why did Ms. Proulx change the rules for

Mr. Pressault? Mr. Singh challenged Senator Housakos’s statement that the Senate

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 85 of 150

wanted to be transparent and open. Mr. Singh argued that had that been the case, then

the Senate would have made it clear at the time who decided to no longer allow

directors to attend Standing Committee and Steering Committee meetings, along with

the reasons behind it.

Mr. Singh argued that without involving Mr. Singh, the Executive Committee

decided to discuss what their organization would look like. Before then, he had always

been involved. Mr. Singh rejected Ms. Proulx’s evidence that she still consulted him. In

his view, she did so only after the fact.

Mr. Singh argued that Ms. Proulx’s behaviour as a manager was an issue.

Mr. Singh said that before she was appointed Chief Corporate Services Officer,

Mr. O’Brien let Mr. Singh manage and held bilateral meetings only when an issue arose

that affected the Standing Committee and Steering Committee. Ms. Proulx simply

micromanaged Mr. Singh’s work.

As an example, Mr. Singh referred to the Senate’s compensation study, in which

Ms. Proulx continuously intervened; she did not deny doing it. Mr. Singh maintained

that clearly, an executive classified EX-05 who spends her time reviewing letters is

micromanaging (Exhibit E-1, tab 17).

Another example was the chief financial officer development program, in which

Ms. Proulx again became involved and asked Mr. Singh to remove himself from it. He

felt excluded. Mr. Singh insisted again that becoming involved like that is not part of

an EX-05’s job; the fact that she chose the selection board members and did not

include a visible minority was also very unusual and telling. While Mr. Singh admitted

that he never asked to be part of that board, he stated that nevertheless, Ms. Proulx

should have known about the relevant policy and should have asked for a member of a

member of a visible minority group to be part of it.

According to Mr. Singh, it is also very revealing that no visible minority

was selected from the process (Exhibit G-1, tab 15, page 6, section 2.6). Mr. Singh

also pointed out that Ms. Proulx did not show the same concern to retain two of the

visible-minority candidates for the chief financial officer development program as she

did when Ms. Vanikiotis wanted to leave on an Interchange Canada assignment.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 86 of 150

Mr. Singh referred to Ms. Vanikiotis’s interest in an Interchange Canada

assignment as another example of Ms. Proulx’s micromanagement. Once again, there

was no excuse for her or Mr. Patrice’s involvement. Mr. Singh was the delegated

manager. He wanted to support Ms. Vanikiotis. It was his job as the manager to make

the decision, not Ms. Proulx’s (Exhibit G-2, tab 21).

Addressing the issue of his letter of reprimand, Mr. Singh pointed out that he

thought that the purpose of the April 2, 2015, meeting was to discuss the grievance

filed against his appointment. To his surprise, Ms. Proulx and Mr. Bédard grilled him

about his letter of offer. While the grievance was dismissed, the Executive Committee

decided to proceed with a disciplinary hearing on May 15, 2015, about the letter of

offer (Exhibits G-5 and E-1, tab 11).

Mr. Singh indicated that while he might have been defensive with respect to the

salary and the probation period, nevertheless, he was embarrassed and remorseful

about the vacation-leave transfer. Mr. Singh pointed out that both Ms. Proulx and

Mr. Patrice testified that the salary and probation were no big deal. Mr. Singh

submitted that the issue of how much the salary should have been is arguable and that

with respect to the probation period, Mr. Singh had already been at the Senate for

18 months when he was appointed Director of Human Resources. Everyone agreed that

he had been through the probationary period. Therefore, in Mr. Singh’s view, there was

no ground for discipline with respect to the salary and the probation period.

As for the vacation-leave transfer, Mr. Singh argued that it was a mistake. He

simply employed a template that had been used to transfer a Senate employee to the

House of Commons. Mr. Singh argued that Ms. Proulx made a big deal out of it, despite

the fact that again, it was a simple error (Exhibit G-2, tab 22, page 2). According to

Mr. Singh, discrimination can be detected when a situation like the vacation-leave

transfer, with no intentional misconduct, is made into a big deal.

In addition, disproportional discipline is a sign of discrimination. Mr. Singh

argued that Ms. Proulx saw the incident through a certain lens, while Mr. Patrice might

not have considered it as serious an offence as she did. He also indicated that the

language in the last paragraph of the letter of reprimand is so strong that it amounts

to harassment of Mr. Singh. There was no reason to say it, especially in light of the fact

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 87 of 150

that he had told Mr. Pleau that having him draft his letter of offer was unusual (Exhibit

G-2, tab 22, page 2, third-last paragraph).

Mr. Singh referred to the fact that immediately after the letter of reprimand

was issued, Mr. Singh had less latitude; Mr. Patrice expressed that Mr. Singh was

untrustworthy (Exhibit E-1, tab 25). Mr. Singh insisted that the discipline imposed on

him for an honest mistake was disproportionate and more severe than the one

imposed on Mr. Patrice’s manager, who had received only an oral reprimand for yelling

at his employee. Mr. Singh also stressed the fact that the senators were not informed

about the matter.

As for the proposed changes to the Human Resources Directorate, Mr. Singh

argued that from the beginning, Ms. Proulx distrusted Mr. Singh’s decisions, which

might have been unconscious (Exhibit G-2, tab 24). Mr. Singh questioned whether, when

Ms. Proulx emphasized to him that the Human Resources Directorate had to be “purer

than pure”, she again implied that he was dishonest. If not, why did she choose those

words? She was suspicious of him (Exhibit G-2, tab 25).

Mr. Singh argued that when he began to state that he was being treated

differently, it should have raised a red flag at the Senate; senior management should

have looked into the matter and tried to fix it. While Mr. Singh admitted that perhaps,

he should not have said that Ms. Proulx was not a human-resources expert, Mr. Patrice

and Mr. Robert should have realized that Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx had issues and

should have done something about it. They did not (Exhibit G-2, tab 29, page 2).

Mr. Singh argued that the very formal letter sent to him on September 16, 2015,

is another example of Ms. Proulx’s micromanaging. She again raised the issue of his

ethics (Exhibit G-2, tab 31, page 5).

Mr. Singh pointed out that the letter also referred to Mr. Nunan’s replacement.

According to Mr. Singh, Ms. Eynoux, who was Mr. Singh’s choice, was more experienced

and senior than Ms. Blais, who was Ms. Proulx’s choice. Mr. Singh questioned whether it

should be concluded that Ms. Proulx was more comfortable with Ms. Blais, who shared

Ms. Proulx’s ethnic background.

In Mr. Singh’s view, this is a good example of unconscious bias, about which the

Senate should have done things differently and not chosen the least experienced of

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 88 of 150

two candidates as Mr. Nunan’s replacement. Mr. Singh indicated that Ms. Eynoux

should have been chosen; that is how employment equity works in an institution.

After all, Ms. Eynoux had more experience and was classified at a higher level than was

Ms. Blais.

Mr. Singh argued that he not only saw an issue with visible-minority

representation. He referred to the Senate staff meeting at which he had to defuse a

situation when a participant asked about the lack of visible-minority representation at

the senior level. Mr. Singh argued that this anecdote, taken with other examples of

differential treatment, leads to the conclusion that discrimination occurred.

Turning to the events involving the capsules to be presented at the Senate

budget subcommittee meeting scheduled for December 2015, Mr. Singh maintained

that he did not recall being told, in the Senate lobby in August 2015, to drop the idea

of presenting them capsules at the meeting (Exhibit E-1, tab 24).

Mr. Singh turned to the November 16, 2015, meeting involving Mr. Singh,

Ms. Proulx, and Ms. Legault and indicated that it was the beginning of the end for him.

He said that Ms. Proulx and Ms. Legault “dressed [him] down” at that meeting; they

embarrassed him. Ms. Proulx demonstrated a lack of respect toward him. Mr. Singh felt

muzzled and humiliated.

As for the November 24 email, Mr. Singh indicated that while it might not have

been a formal complaint, nevertheless, he raised important issues with Ms. Proulx. He

argued that in the email, he told her that they should try to sort things out.

Addressing the issue of his allegations in the November 24 email, Mr. Singh

relied on his testimony, in which he said that on the next day, Mr. Patrice and

Mr. Robert told him that the statements in his email would be investigated (Exhibit G-1,

tab 2). Mr. Singh disputed Mr. Patrice’s affirmation that Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert said

only that they would recommend an investigation, not that they would carry one out.

Mr. Singh stated that Mr. Patrice’s recollection might not be accurate, since Mr. Patrice

and Mr. Robert decided to change the reporting scheme so that the Human Resources

Directorate would report to Mr. Robert temporarily. That decision goes with the

proposition that there would be an investigation.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 89 of 150

b. Failure to investigate the racial discrimination allegations

Mr. Singh dismissed Senator Housakos’s claim that he investigated Mr. Singh’s

allegations. For one thing, Senator Housakos did not even talk to Mr. Singh to obtain

the details of the allegations; he did not follow the process. Moreover, Mr. Singh argued

that Senator Housakos limited his inquiry to Caucasian senators and a Caucasian

employee. For Mr. Singh, selecting only them to find out whether Ms. Proulx was

racist cannot be described as an investigation. If anything, in the circumstances, it

was offensive.

Mr. Singh maintained that Senator Housakos’s inquiry was inherently

discriminatory. In Mr. Singh’s view, Senator Housakos’s approach was plainly

simplistic, which constituted a breach of the harassment policy.

In support of his arguments, Mr. Singh referred me to the following decisions:

Nelson v. Lakehead University, 2008 HRTO 41 at paras. 90 to 93, 101, and 102; Brar v.

B.C. Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 BCHRT 151 at paras. 732 and 743; Turner v.

Canada Border Services Agency, 2020 CHRT 1 at para. 130; Hinds v. Canada

(Employment and Immigration Commission) (1989), 10 CHRR D/5683 at paras. 41611

and 41617 to 41619; Islam v. Big Inc., 2013 HRTO 2009; Ananda v. Humber College

Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning, 2017 HRTO 611 at para. 121.

Mr. Singh argued that failing to investigate, like in this case, amounts to

discrimination, even if there are no leads to investigate, and referred me to Hinds, at

paras. 41611 and 41617 to 41619.

Mr. Singh maintained that not investigating his allegations sent the wrong

message to employees that a member of a visible minority group will be fired for

raising issues, and no investigation will take place. For Mr. Singh, the Senate knew the

message it sent, which is why Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert went to see Ms. Eynoux after

the termination of Mr. Singh’s employment.

On the issue of the duty to investigate, Mr. Singh referred me to Islam, at

para. 269. He also argued that in itself, the failure to investigate his allegations was an

element of discrimination, even though the complaint was not upheld, as pointed out

in Ananda, at para. 121.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 90 of 150

Mr. Singh argued that Senator Housakos should have spoken to him about the

allegations. Senator Housakos’s statement that Ms. Proulx has “no bone of racism” in

her was simply not good enough; a decision is not to be made based only on an

impression. See Nelson, at paras. 90 to 93, 101, and 102; and Payette v. Alarm Guard

Security Service, 2011 HRTO 109 at para. 36.

c. Termination of employment for raising the racial discrimination allegations

Mr. Singh questioned why his specific allegation that Ms. Proulx was not sharing

information with the senators did not raise a red flag with Senator Housakos and incite

him to inquire into it. Mr. Singh pointed out that being informed about what was going

on in the Senate’s administration was one of the main concerns Senator Housakos

expressed in this testimony. In Mr. Singh’s view, the only explanation is that

Senator Housakos was racially motivated not to act on the allegation.

While Mr. Singh stated that he did not believe that Senator Housakos is a racist,

nevertheless, he stated that Senator Housakos was blinded by his bias, and since

Senator Housakos is not part of a racial minority group, Senator Housakos has

never experienced such treatment. That is why it would have been important for

Senator Housakos to talk to people of colour when he had his discussions about

whether Ms. Proulx was racist. Mr. Singh stated that an organization like the Senate can

have every possible employment-equity policy, but that will not change things if people

do not understand that people of colour experience discrimination.

Mr. Singh maintained that Senator Housakos thought that Mr. Singh was playing

the race card and that Senator Housakos decided to terminate him, even though

Senator Housakos was unaware of the situation between Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx.

Mr. Singh argued that the fact that Senator Housakos thought that Ms. Proulx could not

have discriminated against Mr. Singh because she had hired him into the Senate shows

that Senator Housakos still thinks like people did in 1950.

Mr. Singh also argued that the Senate was offended that a discrimination

allegation had been made. Addressing Senator Housakos’s concern that Mr. Singh and

Ms. Proulx could no longer work together, Mr. Singh argued that it was probably driven

by Senator Housakos’s view that never can an employee continue to work for a

superior once the employee raises discrimination. For Mr. Singh, this is a myth or

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 91 of 150

misconception that shows that Senator Housakos has flawed views of racial

discrimination. Mr. Singh referred me to Brar, at para. 724.

Mr. Singh stated that practically the only thing Senator Housakos knew about

the letter of reprimand and the termination of Mr. Singh’s employment was the fact

that Mr. Singh had alleged that he had been discriminated against.

Mr. Singh argued that both Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert did not want to terminate

his employment; rather, they wanted an investigation launched. The reasons that

Senator Housakos now gave to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment are not the same as

the reasons stated in the December 2, 2015, letter. According to Mr. Singh, Mr. Robert

knew that “things did not look good”. Thus, he tried to put everything in the letter of

termination. Mr. Singh asked me to draw an adverse inference from the fact that

Mr. Robert did not testify and referred me to Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc.,

2013 HRTO 650 at para. 108.

4. The test for prima facie discrimination

Mr. Singh reviewed the three following points, which must be met to establish a

prima facie case of discrimination in this case:

• the person is a member of a group listed under s. 3(1) of the CHRA;

• the person was subject to adverse treatment; and

• the person’s race, colour, or national or ethnic origin was a factor in the

alleged adverse treatment.

Mr. Singh referred me to Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155 at para 14; Turner, at

para. 45; and Brar, at para. 697.

Mr. Singh argued that in this case, there is a nexus between Ms. Proulx’s conduct

and a prohibited ground of discrimination. In addition, to conclude that discrimination

occurred, there is no need to prove that discrimination was the cause, only that it

tainted the conduct. Mr. Singh referred me to Turner, at paras. 45 and 54; and Brar, at

para. 700.

Addressing the issue of proving that Mr. Singh was subject to adverse

treatment, Mr. Singh stated that discrimination is rarely openly displayed. It is often

based on inferences. Mr. Singh maintained that considering all the facts of Ms. Proulx’s

treatment of Mr. Singh, one has to conclude that she treated him adversely, even if it

might have been unintentional.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 92 of 150

Racism is often unconscious, as stated in Shaw, at para. 34; Turner, at

paras. 48 and 49; and Brar, at para. 699. The constellation of facts in this case must be

considered. Mr. Singh indicated that I must examine all the circumstances and search

for the “subtle scent of discrimination”, as indicated in Turner, at paras. 48, 54,

and 107.

Mr. Singh also asked me to conclude that the evidence that visible minorities

are underrepresented at the Senate’s executive level could also support an inference

that race was a factor in Mr. Singh’s treatment. Mr. Singh referred me to Turner, at

paras. 54 and 106, and Khiamal v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2009 FC 495 at

paras. 80 to 84.

Mr. Singh pointed out that the evidence is that he performed well in his job.

Given that fact, he questioned why Ms. Proulx did not trust him. Also, why did the

Executive Committee impose such disproportional discipline against his mistake with

respect to his letter of offer? Why did that mistake become an ethical issue? Mr. Singh

argued that I may infer only that discrimination was involved in all those actions, even

if it was unintentional.

Mr. Singh also insisted that the fact that the Senate’s executive level comprises

no visible minorities is also evidence for concluding that discrimination occurred.

Mr. Singh maintained that the measures that Senator Housakos and Ms. Proulx claimed

were in place to address employment equity at the Senate were not enough and that

the statistics lead to the conclusion of a “scent of discrimination” (see Turner).

Mr. Singh drew a parallel between this case and Khiamal, in which where the

employee also had difficulties with his supervisor. The Federal Court granted

Mr. Khiamal’s judicial review application and concluded that the Canadian Human

Rights Tribunal had failed to consider that discrimination was a contributing factor in

the respondent’s decision and that it did not explain why it had failed to consider

statistical evidence.

Mr. Singh argued that once the prima facie case of discrimination is established,

then the burden shifts to the Senate to provide a reasonable explanation. Mr. Singh

stated that if the Senate cannot address it by establishing that the discrimination did

not occur, that the evidence is unreliable, or that a more probable explanation can be

offered, then discrimination will be established, as decided in Turner, at para. 53.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 93 of 150

5. Remedy for a CHRA violation

Mr. Singh asked for reinstatement into the position of Director of Human

Resources, per s. 53(2)(b) of the CHRA. He also asked for full back pay and pension

contributions, including bonuses, benefits, and pay increases for the reclassification,

per s. 53(2)(c) of the CHRA, minus the income he earned after the termination of his

employment. Mr. Singh asked that I set the bonuses at 10% and leave it to the parties

to calculate the back pay but that I remain seized if the parties cannot agree on the

amount. Section 53(2)(c) of the CHRA reads as follows:

53 (2) If at the conclusion of the inquiry the member or panel finds

that the complaint is substantiated, the member or panel may,

subject to section 54, make an order against the person found to

be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice and

include in the order any of the following terms that the member or

panel considers appropriate:

…

(a) that the person compensate the victim for any or all of the

wages that the victim was deprived of and for any expenses

incurred by the victim as a result of the discriminatory

practice .…

Per s. 53(2)(e) of the CHRA, Mr. Singh also asked for $15 000 for each breach of

ss. 7, 10, and 14 and an additional $20 000 under s. 53(3) for each reckless violation

with respect to the failure to investigate his allegations and for the termination for

raising racial discrimination allegations. This should all be awarded with interest, per

s. 53(4) of the CHRA. Sections 53(2)(e), 53(3), and 53(4) of the CHRA read as follows:

53 (2)(e) … that the person compensate the victim, by an amount

not exceeding twenty thousand dollars, for any pain and suffering

that the victim experienced as a result of the discriminatory

practice.

(3) In addition to any order under subsection (2), the member or

panel may order the person to pay such compensation not

exceeding twenty thousand dollars to the victim as the member or

panel may determine if the member or panel finds that the person

is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice wilfully

or recklessly.

(4) Subject to the rules made under section 48.9, any order to pay

compensation under this section may include an award of interest

at a rate and for a period that the member or panel considers

appropriate.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 94 of 150

6. Damages

Mr. Singh argued that in addition to the damages set out in the CHRA, he is also

entitled to damages for harm to his reputation and aggravated damages for harm to

his dignity, humiliation, and mental distress since the termination was done in bad

faith and unfairly. He referred me to Tipple v. Deputy Head (Department of Public

Works and Government Services), 2010 PSLRB 83 (“Tipple PSLRB”); Tipple v. Canada

(Attorney General), 2012 FCA 158 (“Tipple FCA”); and Doyle v. Zochem Inc., 2017 ONCA

130 at para. 49.

a. Damages for harm to reputation

Mr. Singh argued that he is entitled to damages for the harm to his reputation,

in accordance with Tipple FCA.

Mr. Singh maintained that as in Tipple PSLRB and Tipple FCA, he was terminated

abruptly, without explanation, which led to rumours and media leaks. The impression

was that he had been terminated for cause, like harassment or insubordination.

Therefore, his reputation was damaged by public knowledge of false allegations.

The Senate also refused to confirm that Mr. Singh had been terminated

without cause, despite being asked to. Mr. Singh argued that when Senator Housakos

commented to the press, Senator Housakos appeared to give credence to the rumour

that Mr. Singh had been terminated for cause. For Mr. Singh, therefore, the Senate

failed to take reasonable corrective steps, as stated in Tipple PSLRB and Tipple FCA.

Finally, Mr. Singh argued that clearly, the damage to his reputation negatively

affected his efforts to find new employment. He maintained that he will suffer from

that harm to his reputation for the rest of his career. He said that given that the Senate

is a high-profile employer, where people talk, it made things even more difficult for

him to find employment.

Therefore, on Mr. Singh’s behalf, Mr. Singh asked for $150 000 for the harm to

his reputation and referred me to Tipple FCA, at para. 19; and Lalonde v. Sena Solid

Waste Holdings Inc., 2017 ABQB 374 at para. 75.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 95 of 150

b. Aggravated damages for harm to dignity, humiliation, and mental distress

Mr. Singh also seeks aggravated damages for a termination that was unfair and

that was done in bad faith. In support of his claim, he stated that the Senate misled

him by telling him that his allegations would be investigated; instead, it decided to

terminate his employment without any warning. According to Mr. Singh, it was not

only misleading and untruthful but also, by doing so, the Senate ignored its policy

stating that allegations should be investigated. Mr. Singh argued that that was bad

faith by the Senate and cited Avalon Ford Sales (1996) Limited v. Evans, 2017 NLCA 9 at

paras. 45 to 49.

Mr. Singh argued that in addition, the Senate never took the time to talk to him

about his claims, which was a denial of basic fairness toward him. Mr. Singh cited

Lalonde, at paras. 66 to 68.

Mr. Singh also argued that the reasons detailed in the letter of termination are

not consistent with the ones Senator Housakos stated when he testified. Moreover,

Mr. Singh claimed, it took eight months before the payment in lieu of notice indicated

in the letter of termination was provided to Mr. Singh. The Senate used it as leverage so

that Mr. Singh would sign a release.

Therefore, Mr. Singh claimed an additional $100 000 in aggravated damages for

the mental distress caused by the bad-faith treatment that he was subject to. Mr. Singh

referred me to Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014 ONCA 419 at para. 77; Tipple

PSLRB, at para. 328; and Doyle, at para. 1. Mr. Singh stressed the fact that no medical

evidence was submitted in those decisions.

B. For the Senate

1. Overview

The Senate began by stating that this entire case comes down to

disagreements between Mr. Singh, Director of Human Resources, and his direct

supervisor, Ms. Proulx, Chief Corporate Services Officer. It is also about his

disagreement with her management style, throughout the time he reported to her, and

with the Senate’s decisions about managing its business.

The Senate indicated that Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx’s relationship began on a

positive note. They were colleagues; Ms. Proulx even acted as Mr. Singh’s mentor.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 96 of 150

However, things changed when she became his supervisor. Every time after that when

she questioned him or pointed out a problem, he would react by stating that she was

micromanaging him.

For the Senate, clearly, Mr. Singh resented and questioned Ms. Proulx’s

authority. The Senate maintained that Mr. Singh was used to the laissez-faire

management style of Ms. Proulx’s predecessor, Mr. O’Brien. For the Senate, Ms. Proulx

was within her rights to ask Mr. Singh questions since she was ultimately accountable

before the Standing Committee and the Steering Committee for all human-resources

issues; she wanted to be kept informed so that she could answer to the committees.

Mr. Singh also vehemently disagreed with some of the Senate’s decisions,

including the one that no longer admitted directors to the Senate’s meetings. He never

accepted that decision, and he wrongly attributed it to Ms. Proulx.

The Senate stated that the disagreements between Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx

reached another level in the November 24 email when he accused her of misconduct

and claimed that some decisions were discriminatory, which he had wrongly attributed

to her. The Senate stated that at the same time, he drew a line in the sand in the email

when he asked to no longer report to her.

The Senate argued that after reviewing the allegations in the November 24

email, the senators concluded that they were not substantiated. They decided to

terminate his employment since the situation was no longer viable; their confidence in

and trust in him had broken. Counsel maintained that since Mr. Singh disagreed with

the senators’ decisions as such, he could no longer continue to work for the Senate.

The Senate indicated that the senators chose not to rely on a termination for

cause; instead, they decided to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment without cause, so

they offered him three months of pay in lieu of notice. The Senate maintained that it

was entitled to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment without cause since it provided him

with the pay instead of notice. With respect to the Senate’s authority to terminate

employment without cause, the Senate referred me to the Supreme Court of Canada’s

judgment in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9.

The Senate insisted that Mr. Singh was not discriminated against and that the

termination was not in any way discriminatory. The Senate pointed out that Mr. Singh

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 97 of 150

abandoned the position that the Senate could not terminate his employment without

cause. The Senate maintained that in the circumstances, given that no discrimination

or CHRA breach was proven, Mr. Singh should not be reinstated and is not entitled to

any damages under the CHRA or for the loss of his reputation.

2. Witness credibility

The Senate argued that throughout the year in which Mr. Singh reported to

Ms. Proulx, his behaviour toward her went well past just disagreeing with her. The

Senate said that Mr. Singh continuously made derogatory statements about her and

that he tried to belittle her. The Senate referred to Mr. Singh’s testimony in which he

stated that he did not want to “embarrass” her at a Senate meeting. He ridiculed her

for her work on the compensation study by stating that someone classified EX-05

should not have been involved. He mocked her for her involvement in the chief

financial officer development program by stating that her involvement was “insane”,

when she simply responded to his email.

The Senate also pointed out that Mr. Singh said that it was shameful that

Ms. Proulx did not consult him about the leadership development program for

procedural and legislative clerks under Mr. Robert. The Senate pointed out that the

program was not in Ms. Proulx’s sector and that moreover, she was not even aware of

it (Exhibit G-2, tab 23).

For the Senate, Mr. Singh continually attributed motives to Ms. Proulx’s

decisions. For instance, the Senate referred to Mr. Singh’s request to attend the

Canadian Association of Parliamentary Administration conference and Ms. Proulx’s

explanation that a directive limited the number of participants to two. The Senate

argued that the directive was quite clear that preapproval was needed to attend a

conference and that in no way was there an element of discrimination in this situation

through simply applying the directive (Exhibit G-9).

Considering the issue of the directors attending Standing Committee and

Steering Committee meetings, the Senate challenged Mr. Singh’s testimony about the

fact that other managers reporting to him attended them after the February 4, 2015,

notice was sent. The Senate submitted that Mr. Singh provided no example of who

would have attended. Additionally, Ms. Proulx refuted this statement. She said that the

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 98 of 150

only time would have been when the Senate hired a new chief financial officer;

Ms. Vanikiotis attended while Mr. Singh was on holiday.

The Senate also referred to Mr. Singh’s affirmation during his testimony that

on November 16, 2015, Ms. Proulx and Ms. Legault arrived at his office dancing and

holding hands. Ms. Proulx denied it and said that she did not even really know

Ms. Legault then, having met her only once before. The same thing was true with

respect to Mr. Singh’s affirmation that Ms. Proulx and Ms. Blais were friends. Again, the

Senate argued that this evidence was not substantiated, and that Ms. Proulx denied it.

3. Legal issues in dispute

The Senate argued that the only issues to be decided are whether the

Senate violated Mr. Singh’s rights under the CHRA and if so, determining the

appropriate remedies.

a. The termination of Mr. Singh’s employment was not discriminatory, and he did

not prove a prima facie case of discrimination

The Senate denied that it acted in a discriminatory way against Mr. Singh and

argued that he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Senate referred me to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Moore v.

British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61; and Québec (Commission des droits de la

personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace

Training Center), 2015 SCC 39, in which it was decided that a complainant first has to

establish a case of discrimination and that only then does the burden shift to the

respondent to justify the conduct or practice; see A.B. v. Easy Express Inc., 2014 CHRT

35; Kirby v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada), 2015 PSLREB 41;

and Khiamal.

The Senate argued that Mr. Singh failed to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination and that the Senate’s evidence provided a reasonable explanation for all

its actions, along with those of Ms. Proulx.

Responding to the argument that Ms. Proulx had an unconscious bias against

Mr. Singh because of his race, the Senate submitted that there is simply no evidence of

it. The Senate maintained that invoking discrimination because the plaintiff thinks it

occurred is not enough; evidence is required. For the Senate, Mr. Singh’s belief that he

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 99 of 150

was discriminated against is not enough to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination, as decided in Filgueira v. Garfield Container Transport Inc., 2006 FC

785 (“Filgueira FC”) at paras. 30 and 31; Le Page v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2015

PSLREB 13; and LaBranche v. Treasury Board (Department of Foreign Affairs and

International Trade), 2010 PSLRB 65.

In this case, there is simply no direct or circumstantial evidence that Ms. Proulx

was biased, either consciously or unconsciously. For the Senate, except for Mr. Singh’s

belief, there is also simply no evidence that Ms. Proulx treated him differently than

other employees. His allegations were based on his belief; he erroneously perceived

that he received differential treatment than did other employees. No evidence was

adduced that other directors were treated differently. There must be something more;

some independent evidence is required, other than his subjective beliefs, which

confirms his impressions. The Senate referred me to Filgueira FC, at paras. 30 and 31.

The Senate referred to Ms. Proulx’s testimony that she had worked with people

of colour in the past with no issues and that she believes that all people should be

treated the same. The Senate insisted that she provided reasonable explanations to the

issues raised by Mr. Singh. For the Senate, this is an attempt to make this case broader

than a conflict between two individuals by adding the concept of unconscious bias.

The Senate argued that its witnesses adduced detailed evidence and provided

reasonable explanations in their responses to all of Mr. Singh’s allegations. They also

explained the reasons for the termination of his employment. The Senate submitted

that the evidence is that the relationship between Mr. Singh and Proulx was broken as a

result of his resentful behaviour toward her management authority.

For the Senate, a difficult relationship between an employee and his or her

supervisor is not enough to establish discrimination, as decided in Baptiste v. Canada

(Correctional Service), 2001 5801 (CHRT) at para. 100; and Hill v. Air Canada,

2003 CHRT 9 at para. 165. The Senate submitted that Mr. Singh was frustrated with

Ms. Proulx and that his view became tainted with dissatisfaction. The Senate referred

me to Hill, at paras. 164 and 165; and Baptiste, at paras. 1, 96, 97, and 100.

The Senate returned to when Mr. Singh had just been appointed Director of

Human Resources and Ms. Proulx, as the new chief corporate services officer, became

his supervisor. The Senate indicated that at first, their relationship was positive. The

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 100 of 150

Senate disputed the proposition that Ms. Proulx did not congratulate Mr. Singh on his

appointment. The Senate argued that the evidence was that she had already done so by

saying, “Good for you”, and that she did not do anything different from what she had

done with others. She was happy for him. So, for the Senate, there was nothing

suspicious in Ms. Proulx’s behaviour in this instance.

The Senate argued that the relationship between Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx

started to change after he was disciplined with respect to his letter of offer. The Senate

indicated that during her investigation into the grievance filed against the intent to

appoint Mr. Singh, Ms. Proulx realized that the letter of offer was an issue.

The Senate returned to Ms. Proulx’s evidence about her investigation and to her

being troubled by the fact that Mr. Singh prepared his letter of offer, which, for her,

constituted a conflict of interest. The Senate also pointed out that Speaker Nolin and

Mr. Pleau were not made aware of the relevant policy’s details despite the fact that

Mr. Pleau had asked Mr. Singh to prepare a letter in accordance with the policy. The

Senate submitted that the evidence was that while waiving the probation period might

not have been a big issue, Mr. Singh awarding himself a salary higher than the norm

and the vacation-leave transfer were serious issues for Ms. Proulx.

The Senate insisted that Mr. Singh drafting his letter of offer was not just a

mistake. According to the Senate, Mr. Singh took pains in the letter to refer to some

specific Senate policies but did not conform to them (Exhibits E-1, tab 5, and G-2, tab

9). The Senate submitted that Mr. Singh reacted combatively when Ms. Proulx first

confronted him about the issue, over the phone. He made derogatory comments, such

as “this is bullshit”, as she put in her note (Exhibit E-1, tab 11). The Senate indicated

that only later did Mr. Singh express remorse about preparing the letter.

The Senate argued that the letter of reprimand was not disproportionate in the

circumstances and insisted that by preparing his letter of offer, Mr. Singh committed a

breach of trust, which is why discipline was appropriate. The Senate insisted that the

Executive Committee went with a letter of reprimand only because it wanted to give

him another chance and to rebuild the relationship. Moreover, Ms. Proulx kept the

letter in her office so that no one could see it, including senators who would have been

upset by it.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 101 of 150

The Senate suggested that had Ms. Proulx wanted to get rid of Mr. Singh, she

could have told the senators about it. She chose otherwise. For the Senate, this was

clearly not an example of unconscious bias on her part. The Senate also pointed out

that Mr. Singh could have grieved the letter of reprimand; he decided not to.

In his argument, the Senate stressed Mr. Singh’s tone in his many emails to

Ms. Proulx (Exhibit G-2, tabs 20, 23, 25, 26, page 4, 29, and 30). The Senate pointed out

that in his testimony, Mr. Singh tried to nuance his blunt statement about her at an

Executive Committee meeting when he said, “Nicole is not an expert in HR — not

qualified to make decisions on HR”. The Senate said that despite that, Ms. Proulx

awarded Mr. Singh the full 10% performance pay, even though she could have just

prorated it to 8%. For the Senate, it was a sign that she tried to maintain a positive

relationship (Exhibit G-2, tab 27).

Returning to Ms. Proulx’s comment that the Human Resources Directorate

needed to be “purer than pure”, the Senate maintained that the evidence is that it was

about the Human Resources Directorate and not about Mr. Singh’s ethics (Exhibit G-2,

tab 25). The Senate insisted that with respect to the notion of unconscious bias,

I should not consider circumstantial evidence when facing an actual explanation, as

decided in Hill, at p. 131.

b. Mr. Singh’s allegations were not substantiated

The Senate maintained that not only was Mr. Singh not treated differently on the

basis of his race or ethnic background but also that there is a legitimate explanation

for each of his allegations.

The Senate began by stating that at the beginning, in January 2015, the

Executive Committee’s approach, which was to discuss and decide how it would work

as a committee and how it saw the new structure, was a very normal way to proceed.

For the Senate, it made sense that the Executive Committee first agreed to the new

structure before involving others.

The Senate insisted that the three members of the Executive Committee were

pressed to act quickly, had considerable Senate experience, knew all the employees,

and knew how the Senate’s new administration should work. So, it made sense that

Mr. Singh was involved and was asked to implement the new model only after the

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 102 of 150

committee had decided the direction to take. So, for the Senate, there is no basis for

suggesting that, as alleged, Mr. Singh was excluded. He was consulted at the

appropriate time.

Commenting on the decision to exclude all directors from Senate meetings

unless specifically invited, the Senate argued that Mr. Singh wrongly attributed it to

Ms. Proulx. The evidence is clear that the senators made that decision. For the Senate,

all the Senate’s witnesses testified that the senators were worried about leaks and that

they thought that having all the directors present was a waste of resources.

Furthermore, the Senate argued, there is also just no basis for Mr. Singh’s claim

that Ms. Proulx refused to provide him with an explanation. She testified that she did

provide one; moreover, it was in writing (Exhibit G-2, tab 29, page 2). The Senate also

pointed out that the decision applied to all directors, not just Mr. Singh. All the

directors were disappointed. Again, Mr. Singh was not treated differently than were

his colleagues.

The Senate also indicated that from June 2015 until Mr. Singh departed, there

were very few Standing Committee or Steering Committee meetings, since the summer

arrived and was followed by an election in October, before which the Senate was not

in session.

Still on the issue of attending Senate committee meetings, the Senate stressed

the fact that while Ms. Bouchard might have attended some, Ms. Proulx, Mr. Patrice,

and Mr. Pleau all testified that from February 2015 to June 2015, Mr. Singh was

probably the director who attended most often.

Commenting on Mr. Singh’s complaint that he did not know the

human-resources issues that were presented at the Standing Committee and Steering

Committee meetings, the Senate referred me to Ms. Proulx’s testimony, in which she

indicated that all briefing notes presented to the senators were prepared by each

directorate. Any changes to them were returned to the directors. Therefore, there is no

basis for Mr. Singh to claim that he did not know what took place or that he was

not involved.

On the issue of the Human Resources Directorate functional review, the Senate

submitted that contrary to Mr. Singh’s affirmation that Ms. Proulx decided to ask for it,

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 103 of 150

the evidence clearly demonstrated that it was the senators’ decision. The Senate

pointed out that the senators were concerned about the Human Resources

Directorate’s management even before Mr. Singh arrived, which is why they asked for a

review. The Senate insisted that again, it was not Ms. Proulx’s decision. For the Senate,

this is another example of an explanation that there was no discrimination.

The Senate also reviewed Mr. Singh’s allegation about Ms. Proulx’s interference

with Ms. Vanikiotis’s Interchange Canada assignment request. The Senate indicated

that Mr. Singh informed Ms. Proulx about it; she then gave her perspective. According

to the Senate, she never refused Ms. Vanikiotis’s Interchange Canada assignment.

Ms. Proulx was not opposed to it as long as the Senate’s operational needs were met.

The Senate submitted that Ms. Proulx wanted to ensure that the person who

replaced Ms. Vanikiotis was the right fit. The Senate indicated that Ms. Proulx was

concerned that the person that Mr. Singh proposed would not be right since that

person did not qualify in a staffing process that was at a classification level lower than

that of Ms. Vanikiotis.

The Senate also argued that Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert spoke to Ms. Vanikiotis

while Ms. Proulx was busy with the Duffy trial (Exhibit G-2, tab 24). The Senate pointed

out that the evidence showed that there were tensions between Ms. Vanikiotis and

Mr. Singh, which might explain some of the frustration. Again, there is no evidence that

Ms. Proulx went behind Mr. Singh’s back to talk directly to his staff. In addition, this is

also a very legitimate explanation for Mr. Singh’s allegation (Exhibit G-2, tab 20).

Addressing the subject of the Human Resources Directorate’s reorganization

following Mr. Nunan’s secondment outside it, the Senate submitted that again,

Mr. Singh presented the proposals to Ms. Proulx. She did not insert herself in the

process; she gave her views after being asked for them. She had concerns because she

thought that so many changes would bring instability.

The Senate indicated that at that time, it was preparing for a round of collective

bargaining and therefore needed stability. Moreover, the Human Resources Directorate

was to undergo a functional review. So, the Senate argued, for Ms. Proulx, the timing

was not right for the proposed substantive changes, especially since Mr. Nunan’s

secondment was not to be permanent (Exhibit G-2, tab 25, page 1). The Senate

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 104 of 150

maintained that Mr. Singh never responded to Ms. Proulx’s questions and that at the

same time, he became increasingly disrespectful.

The Senate referred to the September 10, 2015, meeting as another example in

which Ms. Proulx tried to explain her concerns about Mr. Singh’s proposals, and his

reaction was hostile; he was agitated (Exhibit G-2, tab 30, page 3).

The Senate reiterated that Ms. Proulx never insisted that Ms. Blais, not

Ms. Eynoux, replace Mr. Nunan. According to the Senate, Ms. Proulx simply said that

normally, Ms. Blais acted as Mr. Nunan’s replacement and that Ms. Blais was a better

choice while the Senate was going through collective bargaining than Ms. Eynoux, who

had just come on board. The Senate maintained that contrary to what Mr. Singh

alleged, Ms. Proulx did not micromanage him. He consulted her, and she answered

(Exhibit G-2, tab 31).

The Senate insisted that there is no basis to claim that Ms. Proulx harassed

Mr. Singh or that he was subjected to different treatment than were others. The Senate

insisted that delegation of authority is not absolute; as the chief corporate services

officer, ultimately, she was responsible. The Senate provided examples in which, in the

context of the changes to the Human Resources Directorate, proposals dealing with

managerial positions were not just in his line of authority, and Ms. Proulx, as the chief

corporate services officer, had to be consulted (Exhibit G-1, tab 31, page 2). The same

was true for proposals affecting the classification of a position or the organization’s

budget in that the chief corporate services officer had to be involved (Exhibit G-1,

tab 31, page 3).

Addressing the notice of intent to appoint that was an issue for Mr. Singh

but not for Ms. Proulx and that resulted in different treatment for him, the Senate

submitted that it was done following Ms. Vanikiotis’s recommendation and that

Mr. Patrice and Ms. Proulx decided to issue one for Mr. Singh’s appointment.

Ms. Vanikiotis sent her recommendation to Mr. Patrice and Ms. Proulx, who both

agreed to it, without reviewing the relevant policy.

The Senate argued that while no notice was issued for Ms. Proulx’s appointment,

it should be noted that she had no involvement in her appointment and that she was

not made aware that one would not be issued. Mr. Pleau and the Steering Committee

made that decision based on Mr. Singh’s advice.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 105 of 150

The Senate argued that it was ironic that Mr. Singh raised it as evidence of

differential treatment when he had advised the senators that there was no need for a

notice to appoint Ms. Proulx. The Senate insisted that Mr. Singh had had plenty of time

to raise it if it was an issue. He did not.

Turning to the issue of the chief financial officer development program, the

Senate acknowledged that Mr. Singh developed it. However, the Senate maintained that

Ms. Proulx indicated that other staff should be involved only because the program had

reached an administrative and technical stage. The Senate insisted that Ms. Proulx

made her comments after Mr. Singh specifically asked for them (Exhibit G-2, tab 19,

pages 2 and 3).

As for Mr. Singh’s argument that the selection board did not include a member

of a visible minority group, the Senate pointed out that Mr. Singh never raised this

issue or stated that he should have been part of the board. Moreover, it consisted of

two women and someone external to the Senate, and one had a physical disability.

Finally, the Senate dismissed Mr. Singh’s argument that Ms. Proulx influenced

the selection board. The Senate maintained that there is simply no evidence that she

was involved. At the relevant time, she was busy with the Duffy trial and did not

interfere in any way with the board members’ unanimous conclusions. The Senate

concluded that again, no evidence supports the allegation that Ms. Proulx was involved

and that she intervened in the results.

As for the chief financial officer staffing process, the Senate stated that it is

another example of the evidence showing that the senators made the decision to

appoint Ms. Legault as the new chief financial officer. Ms. Proulx had no involvement in

the process. The Senate also pointed out that if anything, Ms. Legault’s appointment

shows that Mr. Singh, not Ms. Proulx, wanted to bend the rules by suggesting that in

contravention of the relevant policy, Ms. Legault receive an additional week of vacation

per year.

As for the oral reprimand imposed on a director in Mr. Patrice’s group after an

employee made a harassment complaint, the Senate pointed out that the director

reported to Mr. Patrice, not Ms. Proulx. Therefore, again, she was not involved.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 106 of 150

Moreover, the Senate argued that again, Mr. Singh suggested paying a lump sum

to the employee who had been terminated for cause. The Senate pointed out that in

Mr. Patrice’s opinion, no payment was appropriate since the employment of the

employee was terminated for cause.

As to why the director in Mr. Patrice’s sector received an oral reprimand, while

Mr. Singh received a letter of reprimand, the Senate explained that for the director, it

was a one-time incident of the director making an unwise comment. As for Mr. Singh,

there were concerns about the Director of Human Resources drafting his letter of offer.

The Senate also addressed the allegation that Ms. Proulx did not inform the

Standing Committee’s Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates that an employee had

claimed a significant amount of overtime. The Senate argued that the evidence showed

that no fraud was involved, and that Ms. Proulx testified that the subcommittee was

aware of the issue. So, for the Senate, this is another example of a reasonable

explanation in response to Mr. Singh’s allegation that Ms. Proulx hid issues from

the senators.

The Senate also rejected Mr. Singh’s allegation that Ms. Proulx said “these

people” when referring to two senators who were not Caucasian. The Senate argued

that he did not make that allegation in the November 24 email but that he brought it

up for the first time at the hearing. The Senate referred me to Ms. Proulx’s testimony,

in which she denied making derogatory comments about the two senators; she might

have said that senators have big egos. For the Senate, this allegation was never

corroborated, and Ms. Proulx denied it.

Addressing the issue of the main-estimate capsules, the Senate submitted that

Mr. Singh insisted on presenting his two capsules despite Ms. Proulx clearly telling him

not to. The Senate reviewed the evidence and argued that Ms. Proulx had explained to

Mr. Singh why there was no need for the capsules (Exhibit G-2, tab 34, the last two

pages). The Senate submitted that at the hearing, Mr. Singh tried to misinterpret what

Ms. Proulx had said when he testified that “she never said not to send it”.

As for his statement that Ms. Proulx and Ms. Legault danced and held hands on

their way to his office on the morning of November 16, 2015, the Senate argued that it

was just an embellishment of the evidence. The Senate insisted that neither “holding

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 107 of 150

hands; nor dances” took place. The Senate pointed out that on that morning,

Ms. Proulx had just returned to work following her father’s recent death.

As for the main-estimates meeting in December 2015, the Senate argued that

Mr. Singh was never prevented from answering senators’ questions; nor did Mr. Patrice

touch him to stop him from answering. The Senate indicated that Mr. Patrice testified

that he never prevented Mr. Singh from answering questions asked by the senators’

subcommittees. The Senate also pointed out Ms. Proulx’s testimony, in which she said

that the Senate’s meetings are very formal and that if a question is asked, the person

being asked must answer. She said that she never responded to the senators in

Mr. Singh’s place.

c. The Senate investigated Mr. Singh’s allegations

The Senate referred me to Senator Housakos, who said that on their face, the

allegations were false. Mr. Singh blamed Ms. Proulx for decisions that the senators had

made. According to the Senate, Mr. Singh no longer wanted to work with Ms. Proulx;

the working relationship was no longer viable.

The Senate pointed out that nevertheless, Senator Housakos was troubled by the

racism allegation against Ms. Proulx. He decided to look into it and explained the

process he followed. The Senate maintained that since the November 24 email was not

a formal complaint under the harassment policy, there was no requirement to treat the

allegations as such. Moreover, the Senate submitted, even if a formal complaint had

been made, there is no obligation under that policy to carry out an extensive

investigation (Exhibit G-1, tab 16, 4.5.1).

The Senate also submitted that there is no free-standing duty to investigate in

this case since the evidence clearly does not support Mr. Singh’s discrimination

allegations; there was no violation of the law. Since those allegations have not been

proven, the alleged absence of investigation cannot by itself be a discriminatory action.

In support of his argument, the Senate referred me to Stanger v. Canada Post

Corporation, 2017 CHRT 8 at paras. 213 and 214; Walton Enterprises v. Lombardi, 2013

ONSC 4218; and Scaduto v. Insurance Search Bureau, 2014 HRTO 250 at para. 75.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 108 of 150

The Senate also maintained that there are different degrees of investigations

and that what matters is that a reasonable process takes place, as decided in Stanger,

at 62.

The Senate insisted that in this case, Senator Housakos, who is not a lawyer,

reasonably took the time to inquire into Mr. Singh’s discrimination allegation.

Senator Housakos spoke to a dozen senators and managers. Even though they were all

Caucasian, nevertheless, they all knew Ms. Proulx very well and attested that she had

never demonstrated any behaviour based on racism. The Senate maintained it was

important that the people that Senator Housakos spoke to all had experience with

Ms. Proulx; they all concluded that they had never witnessed any behaviour tainted by

racism on her part. The Senate pointed out that the Senator is the son of immigrants

who testified to experiencing discrimination himself. He is sensitive to such issues.

The Senate argued that Senator Housakos satisfied himself that there was no

basis to a harassment or discrimination allegation. The process he followed was

reasonable, even if one takes the position that a formal complaint was made, which

was not the Senate’s case. The Senate stated that after his discussions with other

senators and some managers, Senator Housakos concluded that there was no basis to

the allegations. Therefore, with his colleagues Senators Wells and Furey, he decided to

terminate Mr. Singh’s employment (Exhibit G-1, tab 3).

d. Why Mr. Singh was terminated

The Senate referred me to Senator Housakos’s testimony about why the

Steering Committee decided to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment. The Senate

submitted that the reasons were related to the categorical position that Mr. Singh took

in the November 24 email. The Senate argued that in essence, Mr. Singh wrote that he

no longer wanted to work with Ms. Proulx, that he wanted to impose on the senators

the Senate’s administrative structure model, and that Ms. Proulx was not able to

present human-resources information to the senators. Moreover, the Senate submitted,

Mr. Singh was not prepared to discuss these issues.

The Senate pointed out that senators considered Mr. Singh’s categorical position

as containing disagreements with decisions it had made. As Senator Housakos

expressed, Mr. Singh drew a line in the sand, and his demands were not reasonable.

Therefore, he could no longer continue to work for the Senate.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 109 of 150

For the Senate, the letter of termination clearly addressed the reasons for the

termination of Mr. Singh’s employment. The Senate indicated that it chose to terminate

him without cause and that it offered him three months’ pay in lieu of notice. The

Senate submitted that unlike in other situations, no specific amount is provided in a

termination without cause. However, under common law, the Senate had the choice of

either giving Mr. Singh reasonable notice on termination or paying him in lieu of one.

The Senate chose to pay him the three months of salary.

The Senate stressed the fact that Mr. Singh was a Senate employee for less than

a year as of the termination of his employment. Therefore, in the circumstances, three

months of pay was reasonable. The Senate submitted that Mr. Singh accepted the pay

only in July 2016.

e. The termination was not a reprisal

The Senate argued that the termination of Mr. Singh’s employment was an

affirmation by the Senate that his employment was no longer viable. There is simply no

evidence that the decision was a reprisal for the November 24 email. The Senate

reiterated that Mr. Singh had the burden of proving that a human-rights allegation was

a factor in the termination of his employment. Moreover, the Senate submitted that

Mr. Singh’s email was not a harassment complaint but rather a list of demands and

unfounded allegations that he sent to Ms. Proulx, who was not even involved in the

termination of his employment; see Tabor v. Millbrook First Nation, 2015 CHRT 18.

Addressing the issue of statistical evidence that Mr. Singh raised, the Senate

submitted that while in some cases, such evidence might be relevant to demonstrate

discrimination, nevertheless, it is relevant only if it is related to the issues of a

particular case. For the Senate, this type of evidence is often used when systemic

discrimination is alleged, which is not so in this case. Systemic discrimination must be

related to a specific issue; see Abi-Mansour v. President of the Public Service

Commission, 2016 PSLREB 53 at para. 13.

The Senate stated that at any rate, its diversity report for 2018 indicated an

improvement in that the number of managers who were members of a visible minority

group was higher than the workforce availability (Exhibit G-1, tab 10, page 6). While it

admitted that Mr. Singh was the only visible minority at the executive level, the Senate

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 110 of 150

submitted that in itself, it is not proof of discrimination, and that visible minorities are

well represented at the manager level.

f. The legal framework, and Mr. Singh is not entitled to his requested remedies

The Senate pointed out that at the outset of the hearing, Mr. Singh indicated

that he no longer challenged the Senate’s position that it could terminate his

employment on a without-cause basis.

The Senate stated that while Mr. Singh could have filed a grievance against the

termination, his employment relationship with the Senate was governed by the law of

contracts under common law, which cannot be altered by the grievance process, as

decided in Dunsmuir, at paras. 74 to 76, 95, and 96. The right to grieve gives only a

forum to an employee; it does not change the common law. Therefore, there could be a

right to grieve in the case of a termination without cause; see Wells v. Newfoundland,

[1999] 3 S.C.R. 199.

The Senate submitted that since Mr. Singh did not prove discrimination, the

Senate was entitled to terminate his employment without cause by providing him with

three months’ salary in lieu of notice. The Senate referred me to Honda Canada Inc. v.

Keays, 2008 SCC 39 at paras. 28, 50, and 56; Dunsmuir, at para. 108; and Bardal v.

Globe and Mail Ltd., [1960] O.J. No. 149 (QL), as to the factors to consider when

deciding what constitutes a reasonable notice of termination. The Senate reiterated

that in this case, three months of pay was reasonable, taking into account that

Mr. Singh was a Senate employee for less than a year.

As for Mr. Singh’s requested damages, the Senate submitted that since there is

no proof of discrimination, he is not entitled to any damages under the CHRA.

Moreover, the Senate argued that alternatively, even if I conclude that

discrimination occurred, s. 2 of the PESRA bars the relief contemplated under the

CHRA, including that under s. 53, as was decided in Canada (House of Commons), at

para. 95. For the Senate, the enforcement mechanisms under the CHRA do not apply in

this case.

The Senate maintained that in a discrimination case, the remedies applicable are

under the PESRA and the common law, and that they do not include reinstatement for

breach of contract. The Senate referred me to Dunsmuir, at para. 108.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 111 of 150

Alternatively, the Senate submitted that even if I find that I have jurisdiction to

award damages under s. 53 of the CHRA, reinstatement would not be appropriate,

since the employment relationship has broken down completely. And while some

of the parties involved might no longer be with the Senate, Senator Housakos is

still there.

The Senate also submitted that there is no evidence to support the allegation

that the Senate acted recklessly or willfully. Therefore, there is no basis for damages

under s. 53(3) of the CHRA, as decided in Lafrenière v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2019

CHRT 16 at paras. 28 and 162 to 165.

Specifically, again, if I determine that discrimination occurred and that I have

jurisdiction to award damages under s. 53 of the CHRA, the Senate argued that even

then, Mr. Singh would not be entitled to damages for mental distress or for the

tarnishing of his reputation. The Senate argued that damages for mental distress are

available only in cases in which an employer acted in bad faith or unfairly, which did

not happen in this case. The Senate referred me to Honda Canada Inc., at paras. 28, 50,

56, and 57; and Kurtz v. Carquest Canada Ltd., 2015 ONSC 7997 at paras. 109 to 117.

As for the damage to Mr. Singh’s reputation, the Senate stated that the facts in

Tipple PSLRB and Tipple FCA differ from those in this case. In Tipple PSLRB and Tipple

FCA, after telling Mr. Tipple not to talk to the media, the employer leaked information

to it that it knew was false. In this case, the Senate never told Mr. Singh not to talk to

the media. In fact, his counsel told the media that Mr. Singh had been terminated

without cause. Moreover, the Senate did not speak with the media, did not publicly

comment on Mr. Singh’s conduct, and did not suggest that he had shown any improper

behaviour. If anything, only one quote was made, by Senator Jaffer about Mr. Singh,

and it was positive (Exhibit G-3, tab 3).

Therefore, the Senate concluded that there is no evidence that Mr. Singh’s

reputation was damaged by wilful conduct of the Senate. Thus, he is not entitled to

damages. With respect to his request for interest on the damages, the Senate

submitted that there is no authority under the PESRA to award interest and referred

me to Matthews v. Canadian Security Intelligence Service, PSSRB File No. 166-20-27336

(19990218), [1999] C.P.S.S.R.B. No. 31 (QL) at paras. 100 and 101.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 112 of 150

Rebuttal

Mr. Singh challenged the Senate’s position that the CHRA applies to this case

but that its remedies do not. Mr. Singh argued not only that he had the right to grieve

the termination of his employment but also that he can rely on the remedies provided

under s. 53 of the CHRA. Mr. Singh referred me to Dunsmuir, at para. 111.

Mr. Singh also distinguished this case from Canada (House of Commons), in

which the dispute was about whether the matter should be brought to the Canadian

Human Rights Commission. Canada (House of Commons) did not decide the remedies,

and nothing in it states that there is no remedial authority under the CHRA. For

Mr. Singh, s. 62 of the PESRA has to be interpreted as including the remedial redress in

the CHRA (see Canada (House of Commons), at paras. 86 to 88).

Mr. Singh pointed out that in the November 24 email, he set out what

happened over the year. However, Senator Housakos did not review the allegations; he

carried out a very cursory review before dismissing discrimination out of hand.

Mr. Singh indicated that under the circumstances, I will have to consider a large

amount of evidence.

For Mr. Singh, Senator Housakos made up his mind once he met Mr. Pleau and

Mr. Patrice. He spoke to the two other senators only to have them approve the decision

to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment. Mr. Singh argued that his allegations were

serious enough; they deserved to be investigated. He argued that were I to conclude

that no harassment occurred based on his race, I could still find that discrimination

occurred due to the simple facts that the allegations were not investigated, and that

Mr. Singh’s employment was terminated as a result.

Addressing the issue of damages, Mr. Singh maintained that they can be

awarded under the CHRA. While it is true that in Tipple PSLRB and Tipple FCA, the

employee was gagged by his employer, Mr. Singh submitted that in this case, even

though the Senate knew of the media leaks and rumours about Mr. Singh, it decided

not to do anything about them. The Senate could have made a simple statement that

Mr. Singh’s employment had been terminated without cause, but it chose not to.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 113 of 150

While Mr. Singh said that he might have been sarcastic in some emails to

Ms. Proulx, it might have been that he was just reacting to being treated unfairly

because he was a visible minority.

For Mr. Singh, the relationship between Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx was not

normal. While two executives can sometimes have robust discussions, in this case,

Ms. Proulx went beyond that. She constantly overrode Mr. Singh, which was

unacceptable. Mr. Singh also gave the example of the Executive Committee not

consulting him when it made decisions about the Senate’s new administrative

structure. Mr. Singh argued that even the Speaker of the Senate was consulting

Mr. Singh; why not the Executive Committee, if not to exclude him?

Mr. Singh returned to other examples of differential adverse treatment,

including the Canadian Association of Parliamentary Administration conference. In

May 2015, Ms. Bouchard knew that she would attend, but Mr. Singh found out only in

August. Another example was the issue of the directors’ attendance at Standing

Committee and Steering Committee meetings. Mr. Singh maintained that the Senate did

not produce in evidence any documents confirming who attended those meetings after

the February 4, 2015, email. Mr. Singh stated that there is oral evidence that others

attended more often than Mr. Singh did, especially Ms. Bouchard.

As for the fact that no notice of intent to appoint was issued for Ms. Proulx’s

appointment as the chief corporate services officer, Mr. Singh submitted that even

though he was the director of human resources, he simply followed Mr. Patrice’s

instructions not to issue one.

Mr. Singh objected to the proposition that Ms. Proulx could not have

discriminated against Mr. Singh because she had hired him. Mr. Singh stated that hiring

someone does not mean that the person who did the hiring will not discriminate

against him or her.

Addressing Ms. Proulx’s credibility, Mr. Singh indicated that she was evasive and

that he had trouble understanding her answers, which often were long. He submitted

that that showed her communication style, so no wonder communication issues arose

between them. Mr. Singh stated that Ms. Proulx’s communication style is certainly not

her forte.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 114 of 150

Mr. Singh insisted that the Senate had an obligation to investigate his

allegations; it did not. It should not have terminated his employment; he complained

and then was fired. He wondered about the kind of message it sent to the other

employees. Moreover, the Senate continued to act unfairly by insisting that he waive

his human rights before giving him the three months’ salary. He was paid only in

July 2016.

For Mr. Singh, the Senate should be held to the highest standards. It cannot

terminate employees’ employment because they raise human-rights issues. Doing so

was wrong.

V. Reasons

Termination of employment on notice or payment in lieu of notice

Before getting into the evidence as to whether Mr. Singh was discriminated

against or whether his race and colour were factors in the way he was treated, I first

would like to address the issue of the Senate’s position that it could terminate his

employment on notice or payment in lieu of notice. In the letter of termination, the

Senate indicated that it terminated Mr. Singh’s employment without cause, and in lieu

of notice, it offered him three months’ salary.

As mentioned earlier in this decision, at the outset of the hearing before me,

Mr. Singh indicated that he did not challenge that the Senate had the right to terminate

his employment on notice or payment in lieu of notice. Mr. Singh indicated that he was

waiving his rights with respect to challenging that right. Therefore, no discussion took

place on that issue.

Mr. Singh stated that he wanted to focus on the CHRA, which, he argued,

not only prohibits discrimination but also provides remedies such as damages

and reinstatement.

For its part, the Senate essentially maintained that it had the right to dismiss

Mr. Singh on notice or payment in lieu of notice. The Senate referred me to Wells

and Dunsmuir.

While the issue as to whether the Senate was entitled to terminate Mr. Singh’s

employment on notice or payment in lieu of notice may be the subject of an interesting

legal discussion, since Mr. Singh decided not to challenge the Senate’s position, in the

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 115 of 150

absence of a discussion, I will not pronounce on the issue. Therefore, this decision will

be based on whether he was discriminated as per the CHRA and if so, determining the

applicable remedies.

Whether Mr. Singh’s CHRA rights were infringed and if so, the appropriate

remedies

Mr. Singh argued that he was subject to these three distinct acts

of discrimination:

1) differential treatment and harassment of him by Ms. Proulx and the Senate,

contrary to ss. 7 and 14 of the CHRA;

2) failure to investigate the racial discrimination allegations, contrary to ss. 7 and

10 of the CHRA; and

3) termination of employment for raising the racial discrimination allegations,

contrary to ss. 7 and 14 of the CHRA.

Differential treatment and harassment of Mr. Singh by Ms. Proulx and the Senate,

contrary to ss. 7 and 14 of the CHRA

As noted earlier in this decision, a great deal of the evidence was about events

and issues involving Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx in which they clearly had profound

misunderstandings or disagreements about their work and reporting relationship. I

must say that it is very sad that this situation degenerated to the point that the Senate

decided to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment and that no one took action before

things clearly got out of hand.

The jurisprudence is consistent that to show discrimination, the person

who alleges differential adverse treatment must first demonstrate that there is a

prima facie case of discrimination. The applicable test to establish that case is stated

as follows in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Moore, at para. 33:

[33] As the Tribunal properly recognized, to demonstrate prima

facie discrimination, complainants are required to show that they

have a characteristic protected from discrimination under the

Code; that they experienced an adverse impact with respect to the

service; and that the protected characteristic was a factor in the

adverse impact. Once a prima facie case has been established, the

burden shifts to the respondent to justify the conduct or the

practice, within the framework of the exemptions available under

human rights statutes. If it cannot be justified, discrimination will

be found to occur.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 116 of 150

In Nelson, at para. 32, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario wrote this:

[32] I accept that the legal test for establishing a prima facie case

of discrimination is set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in

[Ont. Human Rights Comm. v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536].

In O’Malley, at paragraph [28], the Supreme Court of Canada held

that a prima facie case is “one which covers the allegations made

and which, if they are believed, is complete and sufficient to justify

a verdict in the complainant’s favor in the absence of an answer

from the respondent-employer”.

In this case, there is no dispute that Mr. Singh’s race and colour are

characteristics protected under the CHRA and that he experienced an adverse impact

when his employment was terminated. The only issue at play in this matter is whether

his race and colour were factors in the Senate’s decision to terminate his employment.

After going over each of Mr. Singh’s allegations against Ms. Proulx, I am satisfied

that he did not meet the burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination

with respect to the termination of his employment. On the other hand, for each

allegation, a reasonable justification was provided.

While it is indisputable that Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx had serious conflicts and

that their working relationship was acrimonious, I am not convinced that Mr. Singh’s

race and colour were factors in any of the unfortunate situations, regardless of

whether the alleged bias was conscious. I should also point out that except perhaps for

the allegation that the Senate decided to retaliate against Mr. Singh, the allegations

were made against Ms. Proulx. In the November 24 email, Mr. Singh indicated that he

did not feel that the other Executive Committee members treated him differently than

they did his colleagues (Exhibit G-1, tab 1, page 2).

Before addressing these specific allegations, I think it is important to point out

some overarching conclusions I reached after considering the evidence and carefully

reviewing the parties’ correspondence and arguments.

I would also like to point out that while later in this decision, I will review

essentially all the specifics of the allegations against Ms. Proulx, I am mindful that

while discrimination can be drawn from just one incident, it must be kept in mind that

it is also important to consider all the events as a constellation or a pattern that when

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 117 of 150

combined, can lead to the conclusion that they were racially motivated. As decided as

follows in Turner, at para. 48:

[48] A complainant is not required to prove that the respondent

intended to discriminate in order to establish a prima facie case as

some discrimination involves multiple factors and is unconscious.

Indeed, it is often said that discrimination is not a practice that

would ordinarily be displayed openly or even practiced [sic]

intentionally. As a result, the Tribunal must examine all of the

circumstances, invariably often involving circumstantial evidence,

that both support and undermine the allegation of discrimination,

to determine if there exists what the Tribunal has called the “subtle

scent of discrimination”.…

In my view, it is very important to understand and to keep in mind the context

in which this conflict started to develop when exploring how the situation evolved and

ended with the termination of Mr. Singh’s employment. I believe that a careful look at

the early stage of his working relationship with Ms. Proulx will explain some of the

actions and reactions.

Both admitted that at the very beginning of the working relationship, when

Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx were colleagues reporting to Mr. O’Brien, they had a positive

relationship. Things were fine; there was no hint of harassment of any sort or

of discrimination.

While discrimination has no barriers, it also is not static in the sense that

sometimes, events or situations shed new lights on people. In other words, it is

certainly possible that a person who had a fine working relationship with a colleague

can become abusive or act in a discriminatory manner when he or she begins

supervising employees. It is also possible for the new manager and employee to have a

hard time adjusting to the new reporting relationship, even if race or ethnic

background is not a factor in the new environment.

Clearly, in this case, things began to deteriorate a month or so after Mr. O’Brien

departed and changes to the Senate’s administrative structure were established in

January 2015. On that point, Mr. Singh complained that he should have been part of

the initial discussion of the three members of the Executive Committee about how the

new structure would work. Ms. Proulx explained that since it was a new structure, she

and her two colleagues wanted first to have a feel for it and to discuss in broad terms

how things and responsibilities would unfold.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 118 of 150

In my view, doing so was perfectly normal. The senators had just mandated the

Executive Committee to manage the day-to-day life of the Senate. Among the three of

them, they had extensive Senate experience. It made perfect sense that they first

discussed how things would work before involving Mr. Singh. That is how

organizations work, and there is no evidence that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were

factors in that decision.

The first illustration of the impact of these changes could be observed as early

as February 4, 2015, with the Senate’s decision to no longer allow directors to attend

their meetings. Then appeared the early signs of Mr. Singh’s dissatisfaction and

frustration with the new administrative structure and with Ms. Proulx’s

management style.

While in my mind, there is no question that racism and discrimination exist

in all kinds of workplaces in Canada, it is important not to confuse them with

disagreements, even major ones, between a supervisor and his or her employee. I am

convinced that the heart of the problem is the fact that from the outset, Mr. Singh

never accepted the changes to the reporting relationship, let alone Ms. Proulx’s

hands-on management style. The refusal to accept that new relationship degenerated

to the point that the working relationship was definitively broken.

Mr. Singh’s belief that he was discriminated against because of race and colour

is not enough to conclude that there is a prima facie case of discrimination. Such a

case needs evidentiary support that race and colour were factors in the alleged

discriminatory conduct, which it does not have in this matter. As decided as follows in

Filgueira FC, at para. 30, quoting Filgueira v. Garfield Container Transport Inc., 2005

CHRT 32 at para. 41:

41. The question that I am left with is this: if an employee believes

that someone in an ethnic group is doing the same job, and

receiving a higher wage, is that enough to establish a prima facie

case of discrimination? I think there must be something more.

There must be something in the evidence, independent of the

Complainant’s beliefs, which confirms his suspicions. I am not

saying that a Complainant’s beliefs do not have evidentiary

weight. It depends on the circumstances. But an abstract belief that

a person is discriminated against, without some fact to confirm

that belief, is not enough.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 119 of 150

While for some, Ms. Proulx’s management style may be questionable in some

situations, one must keep in mind that sometimes, a manager’s decisions are debatable

from an employee’s point of view. That is part of the working relationship between a

supervisor and his or her employee. Most of the time, the supervisor and his or her

employee can find a way to make it work.

While disaccords between managers and employees are not uncommon, some

organizations and their people are better at addressing them in a healthy way; some

are not. Clearly, the parties to this case were not better at it in that each one stood its

ground. While certainly, it was not a sign of a healthy workplace, and surely, steps

should have been taken to address the situation, it does not necessarily mean that

Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in the acrimonious working relationship.

Mr. Singh’s allegations refer to specific infringements under the CHRA, which

are the substance of this case. They were not about Ms. Proulx’s managerial abilities,

unless there is evidence that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in her

management style and approach toward him. This case is not about who was best

qualified on human-resources issues and who was the best person to discuss them

with the Standing Committee and the Steering Committee. As Mr. Patrice said,

Ms. Proulx’s management style is a matter of perspective. What is not a matter of

perspective is whether Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in how she dealt with

him. As I said, the evidence does not support that allegation.

The evidence clearly showed that both Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx were at the

senior-management level and that they were very able executives who did not appear

to feel intimidated by each other; they clearly had a power struggle.

The micromanagement issue is omnipresent. Mr. Singh’s race and colour

could have been factors, but not necessarily. Micromanagement was mentioned

regularly in Mr. Singh’s emails or during meetings with Ms. Proulx and sometimes with

the Executive Committee (Exhibit G-2, tabs 20; 21; 25, pages 1 and 2; 29, page 3; and

30, page 2).

Another early sign that Mr. Singh did not accept Ms. Proulx’s authority is his

February 17, 2015, email to her about the leave approval for Ms. Vanikiotis. While there

might have been some misunderstanding about Ms. Proulx’s communication,

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 120 of 150

nevertheless, the tone of his email (Exhibit G-2, tab 15) is very confrontational,

as follows:

Nicole,

I think you are right, we need to discuss. I respectfully, 100%

disagree with your note below.

This is exactly contrary to what we discussed yesterday.

I would also like to request, that if any of my employee [sic] come

to talk to you, that you redirect them back to me for my attention

unless this is an issue you need to intervene in. I believe that this is

the agreement that you have with your colleagues. Please do not

misunderstand me, as I know you are responsible for HR but I

have enough of my people going to senior management when they

are not happy with a decision.

I am not happy with every decision either, but live with them and

they need to do the same.

Thank you

Darshan

Mr. Singh was not happy with Ms. Proulx and let her know about it in a very

direct way. At this point, I should also mention that while he repeatedly accused her of

contacting his employees directly, except for the evidence that she talked to Ms. Blais

about replacing Mr. Nunan, which will be discussed later in this decision, this

allegation was simply not substantiated.

As examples of Ms. Proulx’s alleged discriminatory behaviour, Mr. Singh referred

to several incidents, situations, and decisions that occurred over roughly the year he

worked under her supervision. These allegations were mostly contained in the

November 24 email and are detailed under the headings that follow.

a. Ms. Proulx’s involvement in human-resources matters

It is not in dispute that delegation does not mean that the person who delegates

loses his or her authority. In this case, Ms. Proulx remained the ultimate authority

before the Senate for matters like human resources. Mr. Singh admitted to that at the

hearing. I do not think she could or should have abstained from becoming involved in

human-resources matters since ultimately, she was accountable to the committees as

the chief corporate services officer.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 121 of 150

And as the delegation of authority table shows, Ms. Proulx had to be involved in

matters that dealt with the appointments of managers or for staffing actions that

were for periods of longer than six months. An example is the replacement for

Mr. Nunan, which could have been for nine months. Also, when a staffing action

affected classification and the budget, the chief corporate services officer had to be

consulted (Exhibit G-1, tab 17, pages 2 and 3).

There is no evidence that Ms. Proulx had undue involvement in

human-resources matters or that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in her

involvement. In addition to the fact that according to the delegation authorities, she

had to be involved, often, Mr. Singh sought her input on matters such as the proposed

changes to the Human Resources Directorate, for example in this June 19, 2015, email

(Exhibit G-2, tab 25, page 2):

Bonjour Nicole,

Here are the proposed changes and the draft org. chart for your

comments.

Also, according to the delegation of authorities’ matrix, these

proposed changes are within my authorities as there are no

indeterminate appointments or assignments greater than 6

months, no reclassifications, etc. Though I share them with you out

of respect, I fully expect to be able to follow the words of the

Speaker which are let managers manage.

Merci

Darshan

Ms. Proulx forwarded that email to her colleagues, Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert.

She added, “Grrr” (Exhibit G-7).

Ms. Proulx’s explanation at the hearing that the “Grrr” was simply a sigh

because there were discrepancies about the length of Mr. Nunan’s assignment does not

convince me. Instead, I think that she was rather exasperated by Mr. Singh’s

insistence and by the tone of his emails, which she wanted to share with her

colleagues, Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert. Of course, all this did not help create a healthy

workplace relationship. While it was clearly an expression of frustration on her part,

I just cannot find it more probable than not that in such circumstances, Mr. Singh’s

race and colour were factors in the frustration that she felt. Many managers would

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 122 of 150

have felt undermined by such an email and would have reacted similarly without race

being a factor.

Further, Ms. Proulx explained that part of the problem was that Mr. Singh often

notified her of what he intended to do, but at the same time, he did not want her to

comment or to disagree with him. She indicated that this put her in a difficult position.

I agree. I do not think it was fair of him to inform her of his proposals but at the same

time to tell her not to become involved, especially since she was ultimately responsible

to the Senate and was being made aware of plans and situations. In my view, she could

not be asked to not comment or react when he informed her of significant issues, like

organizational changes. This context confirms my finding in the previous paragraph

that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were not factors in Ms. Proulx’s actions, whether

consciously or not.

I should also point out that Mr. Singh followed that approach again in the

November 24 email when after raising his substantial allegations, he told her that he

did “not need to discuss it” and that he did “not require a response” (Exhibit G-1, tab 1.

page 3).

I must also add that it is common knowledge that in any organization, it is very

normal and even appropriate for a director to discuss with his or her superior changes

to be made to the organization. As was heard in the testimonies, the proposed changes

to the Human Resources Directorate were part of an ongoing discussion between

Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx. It started in June 2015 and continued until November

(Exhibit G-2, tabs 24, 25, 26, 28 to 31, and 33).

Considering Mr. Singh’s proposed changes to the Human Resources Directorate,

it was normal that he would raise them with Ms. Proulx. In my view, the issue is not so

much that he had to consult her; in fact, he did ask for her comments. It is that she did

not agree with his proposed changes (Exhibit G-2, tab 24, page 3). As I just stated, in all

fairness, someone cannot be notified about an initiative that falls under his or her

authority and then be told that he or she is not entitled to discuss further or disagree

with it. It goes both ways. Again, I certainly do not see anything inappropriate or out of

the ordinary in her decisions, which were reasonable. I simply cannot draw the

inference that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in her actions. Moreover, there

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 123 of 150

is no indication whatsoever that she acted differently from how she acted when other

directorates in her sector where involved. This is another unsubstantiated allegation.

Ms. Proulx’s explanation was that she thought that significant changes were

proposed in response to Mr. Nunan’s secondment. Moreover, she explained that the

Human Resources Directorate functional review was to take place. This confirms my

finding in the previous paragraph that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were not factors in

Ms. Proulx’s decisions.

On June 17, 2015, Mr. Singh forwarded his proposed changes to the Human

Resources Directorate to Ms. Proulx. On June 21, she responded, stating essentially

that she was not comfortable with the changes and that she wanted to discuss the next

steps. She also stated that “… HR has to be purer than pure in its HR activities …”

(Exhibit G-2, tab 24, page 1, and tab 25, page 1). The same day, Mr. Singh replied, “I am

sorry Nicole, but this is the definition of micro managing [sic]. I cannot continue and I

am going to bring this to another level” (Exhibit G-2, tab 25, page 1).

After being told that he would be invited to the Executive Committee meeting,

Mr. Singh replied with the following on June 23, 2015 (Exhibit G-2, tab 25, page 1):

You are of course, free to do as you wish and given how rarely HR

is invited to speak to the Executive Committee, it will be a novelty.

For clarity purposes, however, and for the record, you are wrong

on the next level. As per our policy:

“where a complaint is about the conduct of the Clerk, the Director

of Human Resources shall so advise the Chair and Deputy Chair of

the [Standing Committee] and shall thereafter take instructions

relating to the complainant from the Chair and deputy Chair to

the exclusion of the Clerk”.

…

When you forward this you can tell him that he can come and visit

me at any time to discuss. I am just down the hall.

Darshan

As for that last sentence, the evidence showed that Mr. Singh was referring to

Mr. Patrice.

The evidence also demonstrated that effectively, the Executive Committee met

with Mr. Singh shortly after that, for which he had made notes in preparation. In his

testimony, he could not explain what he meant in his notes by, “When you are always

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 124 of 150

defending, a strategy that can be used is to attack! I can’t wait for the mgt [sic] retreat”

(Exhibit G-2, tab 26).

In his argument, Mr. Singh admitted that the tone of some of his emails could be

perceived as sarcastic, but he was being treated unfairly and was a visible minority, so

he had no choice but to react.

I do not agree. Mr. Singh’s emails of June 21 and 23, 2015, are examples of his

sarcastic answers to Ms. Proulx’s inquiries. While I do understand that he was not

pleased with the answers he had received, it was not an excuse for his tone. It lacked

respect toward his supervisor. Never during these episodes did he raise the issue that

he felt singled out or discriminated against because of his race and colour. Rather, he

took a more confrontational approach with her.

While I disagree with Mr. Singh’s approach since after all, he was the director

of human resources, I certainly do not condone Ms. Proulx’s reactions. Just as he did,

she claimed to be well-versed and qualified in human-resources matters; therefore, she

was no doubt familiar with the tools and resources available to help in a conflict

situation such as theirs. While I think that it was also her responsibility to ask for

professional help, I still cannot find any trace that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were

factors in her actions.

Mr. Singh testified that he felt that Ms. Proulx’s comment that the Human

Resources Directorate had to be purer than pure was directed against him personally

and that his ethics were still being questioned, since it happened shortly after he

received the letter of reprimand. I cannot conclude that his race and colour were

factors in her comment. Further, I understand from Ms. Proulx’s testimony that the

comment to mean that the Human Resources Directorate was to be very prudent in its

internal handling of human-resources matters and that her comment was not directed

at him, personally.

While Mr. Singh might have felt frustrated, is there evidence that Mr. Singh’s

race and colour were factors in her general interactions with him? Again, I cannot draw

that conclusion, although the evidence showed clearly that they disagreed on a number

of issues and that the tone of their exchanges became increasingly negative as of

June 2015.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 125 of 150

As I said, Ms. Proulx had the right to respond to his requests; she had the right

to disagree with him, unless her motives were improper. It is not enough to claim that

Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in her behaviour and actions. Such an

affirmation must be supported by evidence. That was not the case at the hearing.

Examining the specific allegation that Ms. Proulx preferred Ms. Blais instead of

Ms. Eynoux, who is part of a visible minority group, as a replacement for Mr. Nunan, I

was presented with no evidence that race and colour, whether those of Mr. Singh or

Ms. Eynoux, were factors in Ms. Proulx’s decision. Mr. Singh did not make a prima facie

case of discrimination in that respect. However, I am satisfied that in the past,

Ms. Blais had always replaced Mr. Nunan, and that while Ms. Blais was classified lower

than was Ms. Eynoux, she had experience in collective bargaining, which was about to

start at the Senate. Moreover, the evidence is that Ms. Blais had recently qualified for a

position at the same level as the one held by Mr.Nunan.

Further, Ms. Eynoux had less Senate experience and had just been appointed

to a support position for the senators, which Ms. Proulx did not want to disturb,

especially since Mr. Nunan would be away temporarily. This confirms my finding in the

previous paragraphs that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were not factors in her decision,

consciously or not.

Before closing this segment, I will also point out that Ms. Eynoux was not called

as a witness by Mr. Singh. Moreover, except for his allegation that Ms. Proulx wanted to

assign Ms. Blais to the position because they were friends, there is simply no evidence

of it. Ms. Proulx indicated that she knew Ms. Blais from previous assignments but that

they were not friends. Ms. Proulx’s affirmation was not contradicted.

Mr. Singh also alleged that Ms. Proulx contacted his employees directly, without

his knowledge. He presented no evidence to support a finding of a prima facie case

that his race and colour were factors in her behaviour. On the other hand, the evidence

is that all the briefing notes that went to the senators came from the offices of the

directors involved. In the Human Resources Directorate’s case, this means Mr. Singh’s

office. So, one has to conclude that no briefing notes went out without Mr. Singh seeing

them first, unless he was away. Moreover, except for some work that Ms. Vanikiotis did

openly on some special files, like recruiting a director of human resources, there is not

a shred of evidence that Ms. Proulx dealt directly with Mr. Singh’s employees behind

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 126 of 150

his back. Again, no one from the Human Resources Directorate was called by Mr. Singh

as a witness to substantiate his allegation.

One example that Mr. Singh provided to illustrate Ms. Proulx’s

micromanagement style was that she became involved in Ms. Vanikiotis’s Interchange

Canada assignment plan (Exhibit G-2, tab 20). Again, I was presented with no evidence

supporting a prima facie finding that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in that

respect. I note that throughout the hearing, Ms. Vanikiotis’s name, as a manager, was

cited as an important Human Resources Directorate resource person. For me, the fact

that not only Ms. Proulx but also Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert wanted her to stay in the

organization and therefore talked to her to convince her to stay was nothing out of the

ordinary in a given organization. Often, senior people will weigh in, to convince a

valued employee to stay. In this case, the correspondence shows that Mr. Singh

brought the issue to Ms. Proulx, who mentioned it to her two colleagues, who in turn

indicated that they wanted to be part of the discussion and decision (Exhibit G-2,

tab 20).

Can a manager be offended by that? Maybe, depending on the manager’s

reporting relationship with the supervisor. However, the issue in this case is not

whether a manager is happy with his or her supervisors becoming involved in a

management situation. I believe that in an organization that is relatively small in terms

of employees, like the Senate, especially when the players have been around for many

years, such discussions and encounters happen.

However, does that mean that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in

Ms. Proulx’s handling of the issue and the desire of Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert to

approach Ms. Vanikiotis? I found at paragraph 623 of this decision that Mr. Singh did

not make a prima facie case in that respect. Furthermore, in this case, Mr. Patrice

testified that there were tensions between Ms. Vanikiotis and Mr. Singh, which explains

why he and Mr. Robert wanted to talk to Ms. Vanikiotis.

Mr. Singh alleged that he was no longer allowed to attend Standing Committee

and Steering Committee meetings but other directors were allowed to attend. I should

point out that for this allegation, Mr. Singh always maintained that the decision that

was communicated by email on February 4, 2015, to all directors was made by

Ms. Proulx and that it was more proof of discrimination against him since he could no

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 127 of 150

longer attend the meetings, while other directors continued to attend them. However,

he presented no evidence to support his claim that his race and colour were factors in

such a decision by Ms. Proulx, and as a consequence, this claim was not established on

a prima facie basis.

To the contrary, the evidence from all the Senate’s witnesses was unanimous

that the committees made that decision. Basically, they were worried about leaks and

wasting the directors’ time. The evidence was also unanimous that all the directors

were informed of those reasons; they all knew them.

As stated, in my view, the Senate’s decision to exclude the directors was the

point at which the working relationship between Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx began going

downhill. In February 2015, the new administrative structure had just been put in

place. Up to then, Mr. Singh had attended all Standing Committee and Steering

Committee meetings ex officio with his colleagues Mr. Robert, Mr. Patrice, and

Ms. Proulx.

Mr. Singh never accepted that decision and felt pushed aside by it. He

accused Ms. Proulx of making it, despite the facts that she clearly did not and that

the reasons behind it had been explained to him. Again, Mr. Patrice, Mr. Pleau, and

Senator Housakos all testified that everyone knew that the senators had made the

decision and the reasons for it. For Mr. Singh, it was a new reality; he no longer had the

autonomy and the access he had enjoyed under Mr. O’Brien. He now had to go

through Ms. Proulx, which he never accepted.

Mr. Singh felt excluded, for which he wrongly blamed Ms. Proulx. The evidence

is that he continued to raise it with her. He raised it again at an Executive Committee

meeting, at which he said that since he was no longer attending, the Human Resources

Directorate was no longer represented, and that “Nicole is not an expert in Human

Resources — not qualified to make decisions on HR” (Exhibit G-2, tab 29).

Mr. Singh essentially repeated the same allegation in the November 24 email,

as follows, in which he told Ms. Proulx that basically, she was not authorized to

discuss human-resources matters with the Standing Committee and the Steering

Committee and that she would have to make it clear that she did not speak on the

Human Resources Directorate’s behalf (Exhibit G-1, tab 1, page 2):

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 128 of 150

…

I also want it to be noted that on many matters relating to HR, I

am not consulted by the Executive Committee prior to a decision

being made. When you and the committee speak to management,

and tell them that you are about to make a change, it implies that

I have been consulted. I would ask that you clearly state to those in

attendance that this is a decision of the Executive Committee and

that neither I nor my team were [sic] involved. This has happened

on numerous occasions such as when the new leadership structure

was presented or the IIA poster was issued.

…

At the hearing, Mr. Singh insisted that the minutes of the senators’ decision to

exclude directors from the meetings should have been made available to him.

As for Mr. Singh’s comments about Ms. Proulx’s human-resources qualifications,

I will state only that of course, they were completely disrespectful and inappropriate,

but more importantly, again, they showed that Mr. Singh simply refused to respect her

authority and that he even blamed her for a decision that he must have known she did

not make. His sentiment that she was not qualified in human-resources matters and

that she had no business involving herself in human-resources issues, despite the fact

that she was ultimately responsible for them, never disappeared; it was there to the

end. He simply refused any involvement and authority from her.

As for the argument of Mr. Singh that Ms. Proulx should have provided access

to the Senate’s minutes confirming the decision, I see it as a subsidiary argument

following the clear evidence that she did not make that decision. The evidence clearly

showed that everyone knew the reasons behind the decision. In my view, this is more

proof that Mr. Singh was not prepared to accept anything coming from Ms. Proulx. He

continued to insist on it and raised the matter with her despite having been told the

reasons behind the decision.

As for Mr. Singh’s affirmation that other directors continued to attend those

meetings after the February 4, 2015 email, again, it was not corroborated (Exhibit G-2,

tab 14). Mr. Singh called no witness to substantiate a prima facie finding of differential

treatment by Ms. Proulx, whether or not his race and colour were factors. On the other

hand, Ms. Proulx explained that attendance at the Senate’s meetings was very formal

and that the senators regulated it. She indicated that other directors, like Mr. Duguay,

Director General of Parliamentary Precinct Services, might have been invited because

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 129 of 150

security was a very important issue at the Senate following the October 2014 shooting

incident on Parliament Hill. She also indicated that Ms. Bouchard, who was responsible

for the Information Services Directorate, might also have appeared because of the

technical aspect of her work but only when she was needed.

In their testimonies, both Mr. Pleau and Mr. Patrice also said that if anything,

keeping in mind that the Senate held very few meetings from June 2015 to 2016

because of the summer and the election, Mr. Singh was still the director who attended

the most of them. For his part, Senator Housakos said that during his tenure as the

leader of the Senate, human resources was not a “hot topic” at the Senate. All this

confirms my finding at paragraph 626 of this decision that the decision to limit

Mr. Singh’s attendance at the committees’ meetings was not made by Ms. Proulx. Also,

Mr. Singh presented no shred of evidence that his race and colour were factors in

that decision.

b. Notices of intent to appoint

In his testimony and in the November 24 email, Mr. Singh raised that his

appointment was subject to a notice of intent to appoint at the SEG-02 group and level,

while that did not occur for Ms. Proulx when she was appointed Chief Corporate

Services Officer at the EX-05 group and level. He stated that this was another example

of differential treatment and that it supported his discrimination claim.

It is true that in this case, the notice of intent was issued after Mr. Singh had

resigned from the public service. Thus, it became problematic when a grievance was

filed against his appointment. It is also true that in Ms. Proulx’s case, no notice

was issued.

At the hearing, the parties argued about whether there was a need to issue such

a notice in Mr. Singh’s case. Ms. Proulx maintained that one was correctly issued with

respect to his appointment but added that one should also have been issued with

respect to hers.

I will not address whether the notice should have been issued in Mr. Singh’s case

since there is simply no indication that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in the

decision to issue one. However, I must admit that it is unfortunate that the notice, if it

was needed, was issued after Mr. Singh resigned from the public service. I can certainly

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 130 of 150

understand that it caused him some grief when he found out that a grievance had been

filed against his appointment after he had already resigned.

Similarly, I need not address whether a notice should have been issued in

Ms. Proulx’s case, since Mr. Singh provided no evidence that his race and colour were

factors in that decision. However, Mr. Singh testified that he did not issue a notice with

respect to Ms. Proulx’s appointment because Mr. Patrice did not want to give an

employee a chance to grieve her appointment. In his testimony, Mr. Patrice

categorically denied it. He was adamant that he never asked Mr. Singh not to issue a

notice of appointment for Ms. Proulx. I must say that on the balance of probabilities, I

accept Mr. Patrice’s version of the event. Throughout his testimony, Mr. Patrice

appeared very solid and credible in his answers.

Further, Mr. Singh was the director of human resources when the time came to

issue the notice for Ms. Proulx’s appointment. He did not issue one.

c. The chief financial officer development program

Mr. Singh alleged that the establishment of the chief financial officer

development program was another example of Ms. Proulx’s micromanagement and

discrimination and of her trying to belittle him. I should point out that he first went to

her for comments on the program and the details of its process as shown in his

April 8, 2015, email (Exhibit G-2, tab 19, pages 2 and 3).

As for the fact that Ms. Proulx suggested to Mr. Singh that two of his staff take

over the more technical part of the work, while I agree that perhaps she did not have to

be involved, I accept that first, he asked for her comments, and that since she had been

the last chief financial officer, she kept an interest in her former position. Again, while

there was no need for her to suggest that two of his staff take over, I do not see this as

evidence that she wanted to push Mr. Singh aside and that his race and colour were

factors in her thinking.

As for the fact that there was no member of a visible minority group on the

selection board, while it comprised two women and a man, and one had disabilities,

there is no doubt in my mind that efforts should have been made to include someone

from a visible minority group. After all, two applicants were from visible minority

groups. That being said, again, I cannot conclude that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 131 of 150

factors in Ms. Proulx’s decision. While she could have tried to include a visible minority

on the board, I note that in his cross-examination, Mr. Singh, the director of human

resources involved in the matter, agreed that at the relevant time, he never raised the

issue that the selection board had no visible-minority member. He appeared

satisfied with the selection board’s composition (Exhibit G-2, tab 19, the emails of

April 20, 2015). When he was asked about his involvement in the process, he

responded that he only signed and confirmed that the staffing file was complete. As

the director of human resources, he never raised the issue with Ms. Proulx.

Mr. Singh also alleged that Ms. Proulx was responsible for the unsuccessful

outcome of the chief financial officer development process, and particularly, for the

fact that two visible-minority candidates who applied to the process, among others,

were not selected. Mr. Singh alleged that this was another example of race and colour

as factors in Ms. Proulx’s actions. However, he submitted no evidence that she inserted

herself in the decision-making process of the selection board or that she overrode its

decision. His allegation was not established on a prima facie basis.

To the contrary, the undisputed evidence is that at the time, Ms. Proulx was

involved in the Duffy trial and was not in any way involved in the selection board’s

unanimous decision to not select any candidate.

d. The Senate’s compensation study

According to Mr. Singh, the compensation study was another example of

Ms. Proulx involving herself in areas under his responsibility. Mr. Singh alleged that

she reviewed all the letters, which caused delays and exacerbated his staff’s feelings.

This, in itself, is insufficient to support a prima facie case that his race and colour

were factors in Ms. Proulx’s behaviour.

On the other hand, Ms. Proulx maintained that she reviewed only the categories

of the letters. She admitted to becoming involved, which she explained by referring to

the sensitive nature of the file and to the risk that if it went wrong, the senators would

react strongly.

Ms. Proulx testified that the study was extremely important to the senators

since it involved their staff. She explained that when their staff have compensation

issues, senators are quick to react and demand an explanation. She testified that she

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 132 of 150

would have worked day and night if it would have made a difference to avoiding any

crisis about the compensation issue.

Again, this is a situation in which given the nature of the file, the manager who

was most responsible decided to become involved. Ms. Proulx testified that in the past,

a similar review, while not under her responsibility, ended up being a disaster. In 2015,

as the chief corporate services officer, she did not want things to go wrong under

her watch.

This confirms my finding at paragraph 648 of this decision that Mr. Singh did

not make a prima facie case in support of his allegation. Again, I fail to see anything

out of the ordinary. While other chief corporate services officers might have been more

or less involved, and while I understand that a director might not appreciate the

involvement of his or her supervisor, I still think that it was legitimate for Ms. Proulx

to become involved. The stakes were high with the senators, and she wanted to

succeed. After all, she was ultimately responsible.

Again, for me, this is a classic example of profound disagreement between a

director and his superior. I note that Mr. Singh was frustrated about the situation.

This episode and the others between Mr. Singh and Ms. Proulx all illustrate a

profound lack of understanding and communication. Both stood their ground and

refused to compromise, which was certainly unfortunate.

e. Proposed changes to the Human Resources Directorate

The need for a Human Resources Directorate functional review was another

example that Mr. Singh cited as a situation in which Ms. Proulx tried to control his

directorate and push him aside. He explained that in his view, there was no need for

such a review in the Human Resources Directorate, and that her old directorate,

handling finance and procurement, should have been reviewed instead. He alleged that

by focusing on the Human Resources Directorate, she wanted to avoid any questioning

of her old directorate. Again, Mr. Singh presented no evidence to support a prima facie

case that his race and colour were factors in Ms. Proulx’s actions.

To the contrary, the evidence is very clear that the Standing Committee’s

Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates requested a Human Resources Directorate

functional review. They questioned the management of the Human Resources

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 133 of 150

Directorate even before Mr. Singh was appointed director. All the Senate’s

witnesses testified that this decision came from the Senate and that Ms. Proulx

simply followed instructions. This confirms my finding in the previous paragraph

that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were not factors in Ms. Proulx actions. She merely

implemented instructions with respect to the functional review of the Human

Resources Directorate.

f. Mr. Singh’s letter of reprimand

Mr. Singh maintained that in the first place, in May 2015, Ms. Proulx

harassed him and treated him unfairly when she questioned him about his letter

of offer (Exhibit E-1, tab 11). The circumstances of its drafting were explained in

the testimonies.

Mr. Singh essentially maintained that except for the vacation-leave-transfer

issue, for which he was not aware of the relevant policy and for which he apologized,

there was no issue. There was none with respect to the salary and the probation

period. Moreover, Speaker Nolin signed the letter of offer. Therefore, the issue was

closed, and there was no need for Ms. Proulx and her colleagues on the Executive

Committee to become involved.

Mr. Singh’s position was that the letter of reprimand was too harsh and that it

was disproportionate, especially when his situation is compared with Mr. Patrice’s

director receiving only an oral reprimand for yelling at a subordinate. For Mr. Singh,

Ms. Proulx and Mr. Patrice lost trust in him, but they did not lose trust in that

director. Therefore, he believes that his race and colour were factors in that

differential treatment.

I note that the letter of reprimand was imposed on Mr. Singh by the Executive

committee, not just by Ms. Proulx. Also, it is not for me to decide whether Mr. Singh

was entitled to a specific salary and whether he was allowed to waive the probation

period. The parties agreed that Mr. Singh never grieved the letter of reprimand he

received in June of 2015 as a result of his actions and that that disciplinary action was

not referred to adjudication under the PESRA. Thus, those issues cannot be given new

life as part of the grievance alleging that the termination of his employment six

months later was discriminatory, which is the only one before me. That said, the

context surrounding the letter of reprimand can arguably shed light on the issue of

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 134 of 150

whether Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in the way that Ms. Proulx interacted

with him.

The evidence revealed that as mentioned, Mr. Singh did not grieve the matter.

He apologized for the part about the leave transfer and declared at the time that he

“would have fired” himself over it. Nevertheless, he argued at the hearing that the

punishment he received, the letter of reprimand, was harsher than the oral reprimand

that Mr. Patrice’s director had received. Thus, Mr. Singh concluded that his race and

colour were factors in that differential treatment. Mr. Singh referred me to Brar, at

para. 732, in which it was decided as follows that the difference is that discipline

might show differential treatment: “Further, the Tribunal has found that heightened

scrutiny and discipline that is disproportionate to the conduct at issue might also

illustrate differential adverse treatment: [Kalyn v. Vancouver Island Health Authority,

2008 BCHRT 377], para. 428-478.”

As I said, it is not for me to pronounce on the letter of reprimand imposed on

Mr. Singh. However, I would note only that he admitted to preparing the letter of offer

and that while the issue of the salary and probation is of no great concern to the

parties, he admitted that he should not have transferred the vacation leave. In light of

this and the fact that he stated, “I would have fired myself”, it is hard to sustain that

the letter of reprimand was a disproportionate disciplinary action.

As to Mr. Singh’s allegation that Mr. Patrice’s director was treated more

leniently via receiving only an oral reprimand, which would allegedly show that

Mr. Singh had suffered prejudice, the only thing that transpired from the evidence was

Mr. Patrice’s testimony that the facts of that incident were completely different from

those involving Mr. Singh.

In the circumstances, I conclude that there is simply not a shred of evidence

that would lead me to conclude that Ms. Singh’s race and colour were factors in the

decision to give him a written reprimand as opposed to an oral one for drafting his

letter of offer.

Further, at the hearing, both Ms. Proulx and Mr. Patrice expressed their concern

over the fact that Mr. Singh, as a director of human resources, drafted his letter of

offer without signalling to Mr. Pleau that doing so was unusual. They viewed it as a

conflict of interest and a contravention of the Senate’s code of conduct (Exhibit G-2,

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 135 of 150

tab 22). They also both said that while they had a concern with the part of the letter

that dealt with the salary and the probation period, those were not the most important

concerns. They testified that the vacation-leave transfer was different. Both claimed

that it was important since it imposed a financial burden on the Senate. According to

all witnesses, including Mr. Singh, there is no dispute that he was not entitled to

transfer the leave. Further, Mr. Patrice testified that the facts in the similar incident

involving one of his directors were completely different from those involving

Mr. Singh. This confirms my finding in the previous paragraph that Mr. Singh did not

make out a prima facie case that his race and colour were factors behind the letter of

reprimand that was given to him.

g. Leadership development program for procedural and legislative clerks

On June 12, 2015, which is the same day Mr. Singh received his letter of

reprimand, he found out from an email from Ms. Vanikiotis about the leadership

development program for procedural and legislative clerks, which fell under

Mr. Robert’s responsibility. Mr. Singh testified that Mr. Robert went behind his back

and that Ms. Proulx was aware of the program and did not tell him about it.

In his testimony, Mr. Singh did not provide much more evidence about the

affirmation that Ms. Proulx knew about the program. Therefore, it is difficult to

draw any inference from this exchange. Mr. Singh called neither Mr. Robert nor

Ms. Vanikiotis to testify with respect to his allegation. The evidence before me did not

support making a finding on a prima facie basis that Ms. Proulx failed to inform

Mr. Singh about the leadership development program for procedural and legislative

clerks or that his race and colour were factors in the failure to inform him of that

program before June 12, 2015.

However, in her testimony, Ms. Proulx said that she was not involved in the

program and that she did not understand why Mr. Singh raised it with her since she

had nothing to do with it. She indicated that she thought that he had a communication

issue with Ms. Vanikiotis, who might not have informed him of the program.

h. Conference attendance

Mr. Singh also alleged that the fact that he was told that he could attend the

Canadian Association of Parliamentary Administration conference in August 2015

after Ms. Bouchard had been told is another sign of adverse differential treatment. As

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 136 of 150

Mr. Singh offered no evidence in support of his allegation, I cannot find that he met his

burden of making a prima facie case that his race and colour were factors in the delay.

However, in her testimony, Ms. Proulx indicated that during Mr. O’Brien’s

tenure, a directive was in place to the effect that for financial reasons, only two

persons could attend a conference outside the National Capital Region at the same

time. Ms. Bouchard was to make a presentation at the Canadian Association of

Parliamentary Administration conference (Exhibit G-9).

Ms. Proulx’s testimony is that she brought Mr. O’Brien’s directive to the

Executive Committee so that it could be amended such that a third person, in this case

Mr. Singh, could attend the conference. According to her, Ms. Bouchard and Mr. Singh

received their letters confirming their attendance at the Canadian Association of

Parliamentary Administration conference at the same time.

While Ms. Bouchard and Mr. Singh received their letters at the same time, I

understand from Ms. Proulx’s testimony that Ms. Bouchard might have been informed

that she was attending before she received the confirmation letter since she was to

present at the conference and so needed to prepare. Ms. Proulx was also to make a

presentation at the conference.

I do not see anything that suggests that Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors

in treating him and Ms. Bouchard differently. Again, Mr. O’Brien was very clear that

before the directive could be amended, it needed the clerk of the Senate’s (who was

replaced by the Executive Committee) approval to allow an additional person to attend

a conference outside the National Capital Region.

In my view, the fact that Ms. Bouchard received advance notice to prepare a

presentation that she was to deliver at the conference confirms that Mr. Singh’s race

and colour were not factors in not informing him at that same time that his attendance

at the conference had been approved, especially since Ms. Proulx decided to bring the

matter to the Executive Committee to have Mr. O’Brien’s directive amended to allow

Mr. Singh to attend. If anything, the evidence shows that Ms. Proulx needed time to

make it possible for Mr. Singh to attend the conference.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 137 of 150

i. Alleged comments against senators

In support of his allegations that Ms. Proulx discriminated against him based on

his race and colour and was biased against racial minorities in general, Mr. Singh

testified about two different occurrences involving him, Mr. O’Brien and Ms. Proulx in

which the inappropriate conduct of two senators, who were not Caucasian, was

discussed. According to Mr. Singh, each time, Ms. Proulx referred to “these people”

when speaking about the two senators. Mr. Singh testified that she used those words

each time, referring to the fact that the two senators were not Caucasian. Mr. Singh

testified that Ms. Proulx had replied, “You know, those senators all have big egos,”

when he asked her what she meant.

Mr. Singh did not call Mr. O’Brien to testify, although he could have shed some

light as to whether Ms. Proulx said those words and if so, in what context. No

explanation was offered as to why.

Mr. Singh had the burden of establishing that the race and colour of the

two senators were factors in Ms. Proulx’s comments about them. In the presence of

Mr. Singh’s testimony that Ms. Proulx clarified with, “You know, those senators all have

big egos,” and in the absence of credible and determinative evidence from the only

neutral person who was present on each occasion, I find that Mr. Singh did not

discharge his prima facie burden with respect to his allegation.

I note that Ms. Proulx denied commenting on the race and colour of the two

senators. She maintained that it is not part of her language or DNA to make such a

reference or comments. She testified that if anything, she might have said it in relation

to the fact that senators have big egos, which was confirmed by Mr. Singh’s testimony.

j. The Senate’s main estimates

Mr. Singh alleged that a few days before he wrote the November 24 email,

Ms. Proulx humiliated him in front of Ms. Legault about him wanting to present to the

Standing Committee’s Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates the two capsules for

additional resources. In his testimony, he said that Ms. Proulx never told him not to

prepare the capsules; he insisted that she never said “No”. He testified that she came

to his office on the morning of November 16, 2015, dancing and holding hands with

Ms. Legault, who told him to withdraw them. Mr. Singh indicated that he felt belittled

and humiliated by Ms. Proulx in front of a new employee, Ms. Legault. I have to say that

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 138 of 150

that would be surprising behaviour in the workplace from the Senate’s Chief Corporate

Services Officer, especially in front of, and with the involvement of, a new employee. In

cross-examination, Mr. Singh nuanced his description of the events and admitted that

there had been no dancing. He stated that instead, Ms. Proulx and Ms. Legault had

looked happy and not solemn.

Therefore, there is no evidence that allows me to conclude on a prima facie

basis that Mr. Singh’s race and color were factors in Ms. Proulx’s handling of this issue

However, Ms. Proulx strongly disagreed with Mr. Singh’s version and indicated

that in August 2015 in the Centre Block lobby and in October 2015, she told him that

there was no need for additional funds, since the Corporate Services Branch could

absorb the cost of a shadow position and that they should wait for the results of the

Human Resources Directorate functional review.

Ms. Proulx was adamant that she had been clear with Mr. Singh and that he took

advantage of her being away during the first part of November 2015, because of her

father’s death, to push his proposals forward.

Moreover, Ms. Proulx categorically denied entering Mr. Singh’s office on the

morning of November 16, 2015, while holding hands and dancing with Ms. Legault.

Ms. Proulx explained that just that morning, she had returned after being away for her

father’s funeral. Additionally, she barely knew Ms. Legault; Ms. Proulx had met her just

once before. I note that Mr. Singh did not call Ms. Legault to testify at the hearing

before me.

This confirms my finding at paragraph 680 of this decision that Mr. Singh did

not establish a prima facie case that his race and colour were factors in Ms. Proulx’s

decisions and behaviour. While clearly, Mr. Singh wanted additional funding, I think

that in November 2015, he certainly knew that Ms. Proulx was against it and that she

had already told him that he could not have it, for the reasons mentioned earlier. Did

he try to take advantage of the fact that she was away for the first two weeks of

November? I cannot say. However, his version of things at the hearing was

unconvincing; he stated that “she never said ‘No’”.

While I can see that Mr. Singh was disappointed by not being able to present his

capsules, nevertheless, I do not see anything out of the ordinary in having a supervisor,

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 139 of 150

who is ultimately responsible for the administration of a given sector, deciding not to

bring forward requests for additional resources. It is a matter of the supervisor

maintaining credibility in the organization.

k. Ms. Proulx did not provide accurate information to senators

I fail to see how, even if it were proven, anything in the allegation that

Ms. Proulx did not provide accurate information to senators might support Mr. Singh’s

allegation that his race and colour were factors in her actions. I conclude that this

allegation is completely baseless.

Only two references to this issue were made in the evidence.

The first was that an employee was working much too much overtime, which

had to be rectified. There is no dispute between the parties that no fraud was involved

but that simply, an additional resource was required. Both Ms. Proulx and Mr. Patrice

testified that everyone was aware of it, including the senators.

The second was to Mr. Singh’s letter of reprimand. Ms. Proulx testified that it

was not disclosed to the senators to not to alter their judgment against Mr. Singh. If

anything, it was done to protect him.

Failure to investigate the racial discrimination allegation, contrary to ss. 7 and

10 of the CHRA

In his argument, Mr. Singh maintained that the Senate did not investigate his

discrimination allegations and that Senator Housakos’s inquiries cannot even be

described as a “perfunctory investigation”. Mr. Singh submitted that the failure to

investigate constitutes a violation of ss. 7 and 10 of the CHRA, which read as follows:

7 It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,

(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in

relation of an employee,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

…

10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee

organization or employer organization

(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 140 of 150

(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral,

hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any

other matter relating to employment or prospective

employment,

that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of

individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited

ground of discrimination.

Mr. Singh argued that the harassment policy was not followed.

Senator Housakos did not speak with him about his allegations. Senator Housakos

spoke only with Caucasian senators during his inquiry into whether Mr. Singh’s race

and colour were factors in the way that Ms. Proulx interacted with Mr. Singh.

The harassment policy details all the steps to follow in a situation of alleged

harassment. If the informal conflict resolution process is unsuccessful, then a formal

complaint can be made under the policy’s paragraph 4.3.

Once a formal complaint is made, the harassment policy then describes the

following steps, like screening the complaint. The policy also details reviewing and

investigating the complaint. It is interesting to note that throughout the process, the

policy refers to a “formal” complaint (Exhibit G-1, tab 16, paragraphs 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5).

While the grievance referred to adjudication does not directly challenge the

Senate’s interpretation and application of the harassment policy, it raises nevertheless

that the Senate “… failed to investigate [Mr. Singh’s] allegations of discrimination.” In

my view, the matter should be considered with an open mind and with a view that if

wrongs have been committed, a fair and reasonable resolution should be favoured.

In his November 26, 2015, email to Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert, Mr. Singh claimed

to “… being very aware of how this process works” (Exhibit G-1, tab 2, page 2). In

addition, when he met with Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert on November 25, the evidence is

that he was surprised that Ms. Proulx had shared the November 24 email with them.

Mr. Singh did not intend to make a formal complaint against Ms. Proulx. To the

contrary, he intended the November 24 email to be “private” between him and

Ms. Proulx.

In the circumstances, I do not believe that Mr. Singh intended to make either a

formal or informal harassment complaint about Ms. Proulx. Moreover, the language of

the November 24 email is clear about his demands, but he also did not want her to

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 141 of 150

respond. He wrote, “I do not need to discuss it any further as I have put my concerns

in writing. I do not require a response. Simple decisions on my requests are all that

I require.”

In his November 26, 2015, email to Mr. Patrice and Mr. Robert, Mr. Singh also

reiterated that he did not ask for an investigation, stating (Exhibit G-1, tab 2, page 2):

“Lastly given my loyalty to the Senate and the fact that I do not hold a personal

vendetta against the CCSO, I do wish to put in writing that I have not requested

an investigation.”

In the circumstances, Mr. Singh did not establish a prima facie case that he

made a formal complaint about Ms. Proulx; in fact, his evidence proves quite the

opposite. In those circumstances, was there an obligation for the Senate to launch a

formal investigation into Mr. Singh’s allegations? I do not think so. As I said, the form

should not be an obstacle to fair and just treatment; at any rate, the situation

was investigated.

In the circumstances, was Senator Housakos’s inquiry into Mr. Singh’s

allegations a failure of the Senate’s obligations under the CHRA? Mr. Singh referred me

to Brar, at para. 732, which states, “… the lack of due process may be evidence of

adverse treatment.” I have already found that Mr. Singh did not establish a prima facie

case that his race and colour were factors in Ms. Proulx’s interactions with him. I

further find that Senator Housakos had no obligations under the CHRA to investigate

those interactions and that for the reasons offered by the Human Rights Tribunal of

Ontario at paragraph 78 of Scaduto, as follows, any deficiency in Senator Housakos’s

investigation did not constitute a breach of CHRA:

[78] An employer’s failure to investigate a complaint of

discrimination can contravene the Code when it causes or

contributes to discrimination in the workplace. The breach of the

Code is not the failure to investigate per se, but the failure to

provide a workplace free from discrimination, which includes

discrimination that is caused or exacerbated by a failure to

investigate alleged Code infringements. In my view, there must be

a finding of discrimination in order to sustain a violation of the

Code. There is no contravention of the Code simply because there

was a failure to investigate a complaint of discrimination where

there is no finding of discrimination. Put differently, the Code is

not contravened by the failure to investigate discrimination that

does not exist. This finding is supported by the recent decision of

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 142 of 150

the Divisional Court in Walton Enterprises v. Lombardi, 2013

ONSC 248 at paras. 51 and 54.

Nevertheless, as I will explain later in this decision, in this case, Senator

Housakos took reasonable steps to verify Mr. Singh’s allegations. Senator Housakos

examined all the allegations. He dismissed the ones against Ms. Proulx about directors

attending Senate meetings. Just like all the Senate’s other witnesses, he was quite clear

about the fact that the senators made this decision, not Ms. Proulx. He knew about

those decisions and who made them. There was no need to go further. On its face, the

allegation was baseless.

For the same reason, Senator Housakos also dismissed the allegation that

Ms. Proulx wanted a Human Resources Directorate functional review to take place.

Again, just like all the other witnesses, Senator Housakos explained that he and his

colleague senators made that decision, not Ms. Proulx. In my view, he did not need to

investigate this point further. As the decision maker, with his colleague senators,

Senator Housakos was aware that Ms. Proulx did not make those decisions.

Senator Housakos also considered baseless Mr. Singh’s allegation that

Ms. Proulx give senators incomplete information or withheld it from them. He stressed

the fact that had there been an issue about an absence of transparency from Ms. Proulx

with respect to senators, it would have been up to Mr. Singh to raise it directly with

him. Mr. Singh never did.

This situation differs from Payette, which Mr. Singh cited, in which the reason

stated for not investigating was simply that the respondent was not the type of person

who would do what was alleged to have occurred.

Senator Housakos testified that he was troubled by the allegation stating that

Ms. Proulx had discriminated against Mr. Singh on the basis of his race and ethnic

origin. Senator Housakos decided to talk to 12 other senators who knew and had

worked with Ms. Proulx, to Human Resources Directorate employees, and to a manager

working for Mr. Singh. After that, Senator Housakos concluded that this allegation also

had no merit.

Mr. Singh also referred me to Nelson, in which the Dean of Lakehead University

summarily dismissed a complaint about age discrimination that a professor made.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 143 of 150

However, in that case, the Dean admitted not knowing about some allegations. As

stated as follows at paragraph 101:

[101] … I am not satisfied that the Dean’s response was reasonable

in the circumstances… In any event, I have difficulty in accepting

that this is a legitimate explanation for the Dean’s response in this

case because as the Dean acknowledged, he had “no clue” about

some to the allegations made ….

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s vice-chair concluded that there had

been no discrimination but that the Dean had failed to investigate the allegations,

contrary to the specific provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code (R.S.O. 1990, C.

H.19). She did not pronounce on the remedy since the parties were to attempt to settle.

Does that mean that because Mr. Singh made his allegations other than in the

context of a formal complaint, they could simply be ignored? Absolutely not. As

mentioned earlier, in this case and contrary to the facts in Nelson, Senator Housakos

certainly knew the subject matters of the allegations since he and his colleague

senators had made the decisions at issue, not Ms. Proulx.

As for the specific discrimination allegation, Senator Housakos did inquire into

it by speaking with 12 senators and some Human Resources employees, including one

manager who knew Ms. Proulx and had worked with her. In my view, it must be kept in

mind that Mr. Singh had not intended his allegations to go to anyone other than

Ms. Proulx. He did not choose to make a formal complaint because as the director of

human resources, he knew full well that a formal complaint triggers the mechanism

and process envisaged under the harassment policy, which includes an investigation.

He did not elect to do that.

I think that Senator Housakos showed due diligence. He examined some

allegations and immediately realized that on their face, they were baseless, and he

rejected them. As for the specific discrimination issue, he took the time to talk to

not just one or two but a dozen senators and one human resources manager, to

gather evidence on the allegation the Mr. Singh’s race and colour were factors in

how Ms. Proulx interacted with him. From his testimony, no evidence supported

the allegation.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 144 of 150

I cannot say that Senator Housakos’s approach was cavalier or that he was

careless. He was troubled by the discrimination allegation and decided to inquire into

it. In my view, his approach was sufficiently thorough and reasonable. The fact that he

did not talk to senators from visible minority groups is not conclusive in the sense that

it was important to obtain the views of those who knew Ms. Proulx and had observed

her behaviour. It would have been objectionable had the evidence disclosed that

Senator Housakos chose to exclude from his inquiry senators who were members of

visible minority groups who also knew Ms. Proulx. As I said, this was not argued. As

already mentioned, I agree with the ruling in Scaduto, and considering my earlier

findings that Mr. Singh failed to establish before me that his race and colour were

factors in the way Ms. Proulx behaved toward him, I found at paragraph 699 of this

decision that had Senator Housakos failed in the Senate’s duty to investigate

Mr. Singh’s discrimination allegations, such a failure, by itself, would not have

amounted to a discriminatory action. However, the evidence before me confirmed that

Senator Housakos conducted an investigation nevertheless and that his investigation

was sufficiently thorough and reasonable, in the circumstances.

Termination of employment for raising racial discrimination allegations,

contrary to ss. 7, 14, and 14.1 of the CHRA

Mr. Singh alleged that the termination of his employment was essentially

retaliation because he raised discrimination allegations. As mentioned earlier, the

evidence shows that Mr. Singh did not intend to make a formal complaint against

Ms. Proulx and that he intended the November 24 email to be “private” between him

and her. All things considered, I find that the evidence shows that on a balance of

probabilities, the senators’ decision to terminate his employment was not made in

retaliation to him raising those allegations against her. There is no doubt that

Mr. Singh made a prima facie case that his employment was terminated because of

his allegations against Ms. Proulx; however, the evidence also showed that

Senator Housakos and his two colleagues were of the view that Mr. Singh and

Ms. Proulx could no longer work together.

I accept Senator Housakos’s explanation that when he and his colleague

senators, Senators Furey and Wells, considered the November 24 email, they

concluded that Mr. Singh was no longer willing to work for Ms. Proulx. I agree with

Senator Housakos that Mr. Singh never accepted the Senate’s new administrative

structure. Moreover, he never accepted other decisions that he mistakenly believed had

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 145 of 150

been made by Ms. Proulx, like the decision to exclude directors from the Standing

Committee and the Steering Committee meetings, which was made by those

committees, or the decision to carry out a Human Resources Directorate functional

review, which was made by the Standing Committee’s Subcommittee on the

Senate Estimates.

In the November 24 email, Mr. Singh essentially asked that a choice be made

between him and Ms. Proulx. As he stated in the email, he was not prepared to discuss

its content. He noted as follows that his requests were to be consented to, and that was

it: “I do not need to discuss it any further as I have put my concerns in writing. I do not

require a response. Simple decisions on my requests are all that I require.”

In the circumstances, nothing in the senators’ actions or decisions led me to

conclude that in fact, they terminated Mr. Singh’s employment in retaliation for him

raising allegations about Ms. Proulx. Senator Housakos and his two colleagues

concluded that Ms. Proulx’s authority over Mr. Singh was not the only issue; the

Senate’s decisions were also mentioned. The senators also felt that their decisions were

being challenged. Again, Mr. Singh had the burden of proving that the senators’

decision to terminate his employment was retaliation for having raised allegations

about Ms. Proulx. He did not meet that burden. The uncontradicted evidence before me

showed clearly that the senators’ decision was based on Mr. Singh’s unwillingness to

continue working for Ms. Proulx and within the administrative constraints in place at

the Senate.

As mentioned earlier, this case is about very specific allegations that Mr. Singh’s

race and colour were factors in the way Ms. Proulx interacted with him. As is known,

he decided not to challenge the Senate’s right to terminate his employment on notice

or payment in lieu of a notice, and therefore, I do not have to address whether the

senators were justified in thinking that Mr. Singh was unwilling to continue working

for Ms. Proulx and within the administrative constraints in place at the Senate.

In his submission, Mr. Singh maintained that he had been the only member of a

visible minority group at the executive level and that as of the hearing, there remained

no visible minorities at that level. For Mr. Singh, this also shows that the Senate, as an

organization, is racially biased.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 146 of 150

Although Mr. Singh made oblique mentions of possible systemic discrimination

from time to time, they were mostly of a speculative nature. The facts that until the

termination, Mr. Singh was the only visible minority in the Senate’s executive cadre and

that there remains none are not proof that his race and colour were factors in the way

Ms. Proulx behaved with him. As stated as follows in Abi-Mansour, at paras. 12 and 13:

[12] I did not allow evidence at the hearing on employment equity

matters, save for a general document ….

[13] I do not believe employment equity figures can help me decide

whether discrimination occurred in this case. As I explained to the

complainant, this evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand,

which is whether the respondent’s decision to screen him out at a

preliminary screening stage for failing to meet the education

requirement was tainted by discrimination… I have determined

that employment equity evidence is not relevant to the issue before

me.

In his final submission, Mr. Singh argued that Mr. Robert, who did not

testify, did not want to terminate Mr. Singh’s employment. I must say that there was

absolutely no evidence of that throughout the hearing. The evidence is that Mr. Robert

signed the letter of termination since on December 2, 2015, the Human Resources

Directorate reported to him. Mr. Robert, just like Mr. O’Brien, Ms. Vanikiotis, and

others, was not called as a witness by Mr. Singh to support Mr. Singh’s allegations.

As stated in Filgueira FC, at para. 13:

…

… No party, and in particular the Respondent, is obliged to call

any evidence. The complainant must make out his or her case by

its own evidence, using the power of a subpoena if necessary. A

complainant cannot rely upon, or even hope that a Respondent will

call evidence.

Mr. Singh also stated that in her testimony, Ms. Proulx’s answers were not

always clear, which might indicate that she has communications issues. I disagree.

Ms. Proulx was very clear and precise in her answers. She took the time to explain her

reasons or her decisions very clearly.

The effect of all the facts

In his review of the evidence, Mr. Singh warned about the temptation to look at

the evidence in silos and to forget that discrimination is often based not on a single

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and

Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act

Reasons for Decision

Page: 147 of 150

event and that the combined effect must be considered of all the situations that

Mr. Singh raised. In other words, one must look for a pattern of actions and behaviours

that in themselves might be inconsequential but when examined together carefully

would lead to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case of discrimination. As

stated as follows in Turner, at para. 48: