THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Case No. 17-019-RDO continued
(e) Appeal to Appeal Board 12. The Complainant subsequently appealed, to the Appeal Board, the Investigative Committee’s decision to terminate its investigation with respect to the First Complaint. 13. The appeal was heard by the Appeal Board on June 16, 2017. During the course of the appeal, the Complainant raised concerns regarding [Permit Holder A]’s conduct in requiring him to withdraw the First Complaint as part of the employment settlement. 14. On August 2, 2017, the Appeal Board issued a written decision dismissing the Complainant’s appeal of the First Complaint and upholding the Investigative Committee’s decision to terminate the investigation. The Appeal Board indicated that it did not consider whether [Permit Holder A] inappropriately required the Complainant to withdraw his complaint as part of the employment settlement, since that issue was outside the scope of the Investigative Committee’s investigation into the First Complaint. (f) The Second Complaint 15. On August 8, 2017, the Complainant submitted a further complaint to APEGA, in which he alleged that [Permit Holder A] inappropriately required him to sign a letter withdrawing his First Complaint while under duress (the “Current Complaint”). 16. APEGA notified [Permit Holder A] of the Current Complaint on August 9, 2017. 17. [Permit Holder A] responded, and stated that [Permit Holder A] and the Complainant are currently involved in litigation which will determine (among other things) whether he was actually under duress when he signed and submitted to APEGA the letter stating that he wished to withdraw the First Complaint. 18. [Permit Holder A] explained that it had requested that the Complainant withdraw the First Complaint as part of the settlement based on its experience negotiating resolutions of complaints to other bodies, such as the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commissioner. [Permit Holder
(c) Investigation of the First Complaint 7. Despite the communications from the Complainant indicating that he wished to withdraw the First Complaint and that he no longer had concerns about the conduct of [Permit Holder A] and his Former Supervisor, the Investigative Committee determined investigate the concerns raised by the Complainant in regard to the conduct of [Permit Holder A] and the Former Supervisor. On September 1, 2016, the Investigation Panel issued its report, in which it recommended that the investigation be terminated in accordance with section 51 of the Act . 9. The Investigative Committee accepted the Panel’s recommendations and terminated the investigation on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of unskilled practice or unprofessional conduct on the part of [Permit Holder A] or the Former Supervisor. (d) Letter to [Permit Holder A] Regarding Require- ment for Complainant to Withdraw Complaint 10.Although the Investigative Committee decided to terminate the investigation, the Investigative Committee was concerned that [Permit Holder A] had purportedly required the Complainant to seek a withdrawal of the First Complaint as part of the employment settlement between [Permit Holder A] and the Complainant. As a result, on or about November 30, 2016, the Investigative Committee’s legal counsel forwarded a letter to [Permit Holder A’s] legal counsel notifying [Permit Holder A] that the Investigative Committee was concerned about this conduct, since it appeared to be an attempt to interfere with APEGA’s duty to protect the public, and the discipline process set out in the Act . 11. On December 9, 2016, [Permit Holder A’s] legal counsel responded that the gravity of the issue was understood, that it had not been [Permit Holder A’s] intent to interfere with the discharge of APEGA’s legislative mandate or public interest obligation, apologized, and confirmed that the information provided by APEGA’s legal counsel would guide [Permit Holder A’s] future actions. that it would proceed with its investigation. 8. The Investigative Committee continued to
A] explained that it was unaware that it was inappropriate to make a similar request with
66 | PEG SPRING 2018
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker