JR v. University of Calgary, 2012 ABQB 342

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: JR v. University of Calgary, 2012 ABQB 342 Date: 20120525 Docket: 0803 15387 Registry: Edmonton Between: JR Plaintiff - and - The Board of Governors of the University of Calgary, Sheila Evans, and Jill Brown Defendants Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta identifying information has been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice D.C. Read _______________________________________________________

Summary: [ 1 ] An employee at the University of Calgary ’ s Qatar campus claimed she was constructively wrongfully dismissed. At issue was whether she was and whether the University had also negligently or intentionally caused mental suffering. Damages were also in issue, particularly whether the University ’ s conduct merits aggravated or punitive damages.

Facts: [ 2 ] On April 22, 2007, JR (now

F) answered an online job advertisement posted by the University of Calgary ( “ UC ” ). Then in the process of establishing its first overseas branch campus ( “ UCQ ” ) in Doha, Qatar, UC sought to employ a director of external relations and marketing for UCQ. [ 3 ] UCQ had only one faculty, the Faculty of Nursing which opened to its first students in September of 2007. [ 4 ] UCQ was not a stand alone facility in Qatar.

As well as the connections and reporting requirements stemming from the fact that UCQ functioned as a faculty of UC, UCQ also had connections and reporting requirements to their sponsor in Qatar, an agency of the Qatari government, represented by someone named Dr. Latifah Al Houti who was known simply as Dr. Latifah by the staff at UCQ. It is clear from the documents and from the evidence that UCQ was not autonomous from the State of Qatar. The state had oversight over and a number of expectations for UCQ. [ 5 ] The job profile for the position Ms. F applied for, included the following terms: i.

The primary purpose of the position included a requirement to “ align UC-Q messages strategically and consistently and liaise with the University of Calgary ’ s External Relations Team ” ; ii. The director was to report to the Director of Administration – Qatar. [ 6 ] Ms. F was the successful candidate for the position and in a letter dated July 30, 2007, Trika MacDonald, Senior Human Resources Consultant for UC, confirmed the terms of Ms. F ’ s employment. The relevant provisions of this letter are as follows: i. Work commencement date September 1, 2007; ii.

The position is full-time limited term with an initial renewable term until September 1 st 2009; iii. Enrolment in the University ’ s group benefit plan as described on a UC website; iv. Responsibilities as assigned by Manager upon arrival and outlined in the job profile. [ 7 ] Ms.

F ’ s letter accepted the position “ as described ” the same day it was offered to her, subject to two questions she posed: one requested a clarification respecting health benefits and the second requested information about her eligibility for a pension plan. [ 8 ] Before leaving Canada for her new position and after obtaining legal and accounting advice, Ms. F elected to become a non-resident of Canada for tax purposes. She put her home in Winnipeg into the hands of a property management company and sold many of her personal belongings.

She arrived in Doha, the capital of Qatar on August 31, 2007. [ 9 ] An expatriate working in Qatar requires a residency permit and a work permit. In order to leave Qatar an expatriate requires an exit permit. Residency permits are issued by the Government of Qatar for a fixed term of one year but are renewable. [ 10 ] Ms. F ’ s initial salary was $73,600 per year with a 25% premium, called a living allowance, making the initial total $92,000. Jody Fraser, a Human Resources Manager at UC whose portfolio included UCQ at the relevant time, gave evidence respecting the compensation package available to Ms. F.

She testified that the living allowance was funded by the State of Qatar and Dr. Latifah made

decisions respecting who was eligible to receive it. Both the basic salary and the living allowance were paid in Canadian dollars. [ 11 ] On December 10, 2007, Ms. F received written notice that her base salary would be increased by $16,400 as a result of what was termed “ a market adjustment ” . Her total base salary would thereafter be $90,000. She continued to receive the 25% living allowance premium. [ 12 ] It was Ms. F ’ s evidence that she negotiated this increase with Dr.

Michael Clinton, the first Dean of UCQ, who offered the increase after a meeting where he had outlined some further responsibilities for scholarships and sponsorships that he wanted Ms. F to assume. Ms. F said she told Dr. Clinton there seemed to be more to the job than she had initially understood and she thought the pay level was low for the level of responsibility. Her evidence was that he agreed and her salary was increased as a result. The evidence of both Jody Fraser and Jill Brown, the director of Human Resources at UCQ, was that the salary increase for Ms.

F was simply a market adjustment, a device used by UC to adjust salaries where there is a perceived inequity between employees operating at the same level or when an employee ’ s skills are in high demand in the market place and the University wishes to retain the individual. According to Ms. Brown, Ms. F ’ s salary was adjusted because her base salary was $73,000 while that of the other directors at UCQ was $90,000. Ms. Brown said that a market adjustment is quite separate from evaluation issues. [ 13 ] Additionally, Ms.

F received a transportation allowance, the purpose of which was to ensure that UCQ staff had transportation to and from work. Ms. Fraser ’ s evidence was that the transportation allowance was also funded by the State of Qatar and approved by Dr. Latifah. This allowance was paid in Qatari funds. [ 14 ] Finally, Ms. F was provided with paid accommodation in Qatar as a part of her employment package. According to Ms. Fraser, these accommodations were owned by a separate entity called the College of Mercy project, who set the rules of operation. [ 15 ] When Ms. F first arrived, the Dean at UCQ was Dr. Clinton.

He was replaced as Dean on May 1, 2008 by acting Dean, Dr. Sheila Evans. [ 16 ] Most of the staff of UCQ and all of the management team and senior staff were housed in a residential compound of individual villas with a central recreational complex. Ms. F was assigned one of these villas and lived in it during her time in Doha. [ 17 ] Ms. F went on sick leave on May 21, 2008. She left Doha on a previously planned vacation and to seek treatment in Canada in late June, 2008, returning to Doha on July 31, 2008. When she returned to Doha, she was still unable to work. She returned to her villa. On August 22, 2008, Ms.

F attempted suicide and was hospitalized for a number of days. After her release, her residency permit was not renewed. She left Doha on October 1, 2008 accompanied by her sister DFB, who had come to aid her sister when she learned of the suicide attempt. [ 18 ] Ms. F has since been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder ( “ PTSD ” ) and has not worked since her return from Doha. She lives in her sister ’ s home with Ms. FB and Ms. FB ’ s husband. Factual Analysis: What Happened Before Ms. F ’ s Arrival in Doha: [ 19 ] Ms. F ’ s evidence was that she spoke by telephone to Dr.

Clinton in July of 2007, before accepting the position. She said she was surprised to learn that what was offered was a term position but that Dr. Clinton reassured her, saying that was a mere formality and “ just the way they were hiring ” . [ 20 ] I conclude that the position offered Ms. F was a renewable term position for a term of two years until September 1 st 2009 and that there was no obligation on either side to agree to a renewal. That was the job description provided in writing and accepted by Ms. F in writing. Dr. Clinton was not called as a witness and Ms. F ’ s hearsay evidence of what Dr.

Clinton said to her is not admissible.

[ 21 ] I pause here to comment upon the failure to call Dr. Clinton as well as to call Zahir Jessa, Kristen Mrus, Carol Stewart, Shelly Kanciruk, Rita Hayre, and Kelli Clich é . On behalf of the Plaintiff it is argued that I should draw an adverse inference from UC ’ s failure to call these witnesses. I decline to do so. Alan W. Mewett and Peter J. Sankoff, the authors of Witnesses, looseleaf (Toronto: Carswell, 1991) set out four factors to be considered by a court in determining whether to draw an adverse inference. These were recently cited with approval by Wittmann, C.J. in Howard v.

Sandau , 2008 ABQB 34 at para 44 . UC has provided a valid reason for their failure to call each of these witnesses. In the case of Dr. Clinton, he has left the University and is in Australia. He is not in the exclusive control of the University but could have been subpoenaed by the Plaintiff. In the case of Mr. Jessa, it is not clear to me what evidence he would have given or if it would be relevant. Ms.

Stewart is currently away from work on medical leave and, as I understand her involvement in this situation, her evidence would have been respecting the same meetings and events that were subject of the evidence of Ms. Turner, Ms. Brown, Dr. Evans and Ms. F. It is questionable, in my view, whether more evidence would be necessary or even helpful in respect to these events. The same is true of Ms. Mrus, who is currently in Doha. She was at the relevant time, assistant to the dean and, as I understand, was present at the relevant meetings as a note recorder and not an active participant.

It is doubtful, in my view, that her evidence would be helpful in resolving the matters at issue here. Ms. Kanciruk and Ms. Hayre are employed by Sheppell FGI, the provider of health services for UC, and not by UC, itself. Both could also have been subpoenaed by the Plaintiff. Ms. Clich é is on maternity leave. Given her limited involvement in this matter, it is questionable whether she would have provided material evidence as well. Events from August 31, 2007 until the Meeting of May 18, 2008: [ 22 ] Ms. F arrived in Qatar to take up her new position on August 31, 2007 and moved into the villa assigned to her.

She quickly found, however, that her new work environment had a number of stressors. While the villas were comfortably appointed and pleasant, the fact that everyone lived in the same compound meant that work colleagues were also neighbours. The staff was small. Salman Siddiqui, a colleague of Ms. F ’ s at UCQ, estimated the number of staff at only ten in September of 2007. By his estimate that number had risen to between 30 and 35 by August of 2008.

He described them as a close knit group: people were drawn together both because they were a small number and all lived together on the compound and because they were all foreigners in an alien environment. Because all were expatriates, most, including Ms. F, had no close circle of friends or family in the vicinity. Ms. F ’ s work colleagues also formed her social circle.

On the evidence, living in this close knit community could be pleasant, but it also made it very difficult to get away from work and any work place conflict or gossip had a great potential to bleed into social relationships. [ 23 ] The work place, itself, was also stressful. UCQ was in a start up phase at the time. All of the staff were newly hired or new in their positions, and many of the resources needed to function efficiently were not yet in place. Formal lines of communication, priorities, and policies were also still in the development phase. Like many of the other departments, Ms.

F ’ s department was short staffed and often had to build from scratch the tools of their trade, from brochures and other publicity materials to contact lists. For Ms. F, this was also the first time she had worked outside of Canada and the first time she had worked for a large institution. As well, it was the first time she had worked in a university environment. Ms. F worked very long hours in the months following her arrival in Doha, as did most of the other staff. [ 24 ] Dr. Clinton, the Dean, was also under considerable stress.

Because of a shortage of academic staff, he took on instructional duties as well as his administrative duties. His management style seemed to cause further difficulties. Ms. F described a deterioration in Dr. Clinton ’ s management style after Christmas of 2007 and into the new year as a result of stress. She said his decision making became arbitrary and dependent on whomever had last been in his office. He could give conflicting directions to the directors and to the staff. The result was an increase in tensions between the directors and staff who were becoming dissatisfied. Ms.

Brown also gave evidence about the difficulties caused by Dean Clinton ’ s management style, describing him as a micro-manager. She witnessed his interference in the work of others, including that of Ms. F. She confirmed Ms. F ’ s evidence of wide-spread dissatisfaction and difficulties between the directors. [ 25 ] Dr. Clinton is no longer employed by UC and did not give evidence.

However, I am satisfied from the evidence of various other witnesses that his vision was that UCQ should be quite independent of the main UC campus and this vision put him into conflict with at least some members of the UC administration in Calgary. For example, his relationship with Colleen Turner, the Senior Director of Communications at UC, was described by her as testy. [ 26 ] No doubt the work environment for the staff at UCQ was stressful for everyone; however, Ms. F gave evidence of further stresses, on her.

[ 27 ] Immediately after her arrival, Ms. F reported directly to Dean Clinton because Craig Brown, the person hired as Director of Administration, had not yet arrived. However, after his arrival, Ms. F ’ s job description required her to report to Mr. Brown. She and Mr. Brown came into conflict very quickly for a number of reasons. One of these was that, according to Ms. F, Mr. Brown ’ s directions to her sometimes conflicted with those of Dr. Clinton. She said that her tendency to comply with the dean ’ s requests rather than Mr. Brown ’ s, caused conflict with Mr.

Brown. [ 28 ] Notwithstanding the difficulties, Ms. F continued to report to Mr. Brown until about December, 2007. However, Ms. F had complained to Dr. Clinton about the difficulties she was having with Mr. Brown and Dr. Clinton seems to have agreed and allowed Ms. F to recommence reporting directly to him as Dean. This was the situation until sometime in February when a new organizational chart was circulated in which Ms. F was shown as reporting again to Mr. Brown. Ms.

F sent the Dean a written critique of this proposed organizational chart giving a number of reasons for suggesting an organizational chart in which she would continue to report directly to the Dean. In March, Ms. F went to a meeting with Dr. Clinton and Jill Brown , the director in charge of human resources ( “ HR ” ) at UCQ (no relation to Craig Brown), where the Dean announced he had made a decision to change Ms. F ’ s reporting role back to Craig Brown. Again, Ms.

F protested, sending a letter to the Dean outlining her reasons for believing that the structure would not work, and leveling specific criticisms of Mr. Brown and his behaviour. [ 29 ] In her letter, she called Mr. Brown “ sarcastic, confrontational, and caustic ” . In her oral evidence at trial, Ms. F said she perceived Mr. Brown as acting in an intimidating manner towards her. She said he would come to her office to try to force her to do what he wanted done and, in her words, “ would use his body to make me back up ” . She said, as well, in both her letter to Dr. Clinton and in her oral testimony that Mr.

Brown made demeaning sexualized comments and jokes directed at other women. [ 30 ] This aspect of Mr. Brown ’ s personality was confirmed by Jill Brown in her evidence as well. No one suggested that these offensive comments, were specifically directed towards Ms. F although Ms. Brown said some were directed specifically to her. Ultimately, in April of 2008, on the heels of her letter to the Dean, Ms. F launched a sexual harassment complaint against Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown was terminated in the summer of 2008, after Ms. F was on short term disability. Ms.

F received no follow up to her complaint and disagreed in cross-examination that Mr. Brown ’ s termination ended the issue. She felt aggrieved by the failure to receive any follow up to her complaint. [ 31 ] Shirley Voyna-Wilson, UC's sexual harassment advisor, received the harassment complaint filed by Ms. F and had the responsibility to investigate it. She testified that there were some delays in processing the complaint caused by her own absence on holiday between May 15 and July 29, 2008 . She said, as well, that Mr.

Brown failed to attend for a meeting with her to give his response and this caused further delay. Finally she said she was asked by UC ’ s legal counsel to suspend her investigation until further notice. On her evidence, legal counsel told her they were unable to give her the reasons for the request to suspend but she assumed that the suspension occurred because Mr. Brown was terminated from his position. [ 32 ] Ms. F had another difficulty with Mr. Brown on her evidence. She said Mr. Brown was also instrumental in what she called an allegation of fraud in her department directly implicating her.

She said that on about March 25, 2008, Mr. Brown told her that her department was over-paying for brochures and business cards ordered and that a ‘ kick back ’ of some sort was being paid. She said Mr. Brown then kicked a box of brochures toward her and told her to start counting, telling her that UCQ needed to ensure that it was receiving the correct number. She said he implicated her by saying she must be aware of anything happening in her department. He also told her that he was firing one of her staff. Ms. F ’ s response was to request that UC conduct an audit.

She understood this audit occurred but said the only feedback she ever received on the results was a passing comment from Dr. Clinton in the staff room, that there appeared to be no evidence of any improprieties. Again, Ms. F felt aggrieved that she did not receive any formal apology. [ 33 ] In cross-examination, Ms. F agreed that the Director of Finance, Asif Nanjwani, was the person who had originally raised the issue of improprieties in procurement.

She also agreed that she realized he had been terminated in the spring of 2008. [ 34 ] Jill Brown also gave evidence on this issue, saying she became involved when one of Ms. F ’ s employees, Walid Al Bana, came to her with complaints about his treatment, saying as well, that concerns had been raised by Dr. Latifah about irregularities in procurement and inventory. Ms. Brown confirmed that an employee was subsequently terminated in June of 2008 after Ms. F had left on leave of absence. Neither Mr. Al Bana nor Ms. F was ever disciplined. [ 35 ] On the same day as Dr.

Clinton sent the referral letter to the Sexual Harassment Advisor all of the senior management at UCQ (including Mr. Brown and Ms.

F) signed a memo to Dr. Clinton outlining concerns about the general work climate at UCQ. It is evident that this memo caused Dr. Clinton some discomfort. Ms. Brown drafted the memo, with input from the other directors including Ms. F. It was also Ms. Brown who gave this memo to Dr. Clinton ’ s assistant for delivery to him and Ms. Brown who subsequently met

with Dr. Clinton to discuss the memo. However, Dr. Clinton only wanted to know who was responsible for the memo and who had drafted it. He refused to accept it. [ 36 ] Further, as Ms. Brown told the rest of the directors of the Dean ’ s refusal to accept the memo, at a hastily called meeting, Dean Clinton walked into the office where the meeting was being held. As it was the end of the day in any event, the directors decided to leave campus to meet later in the evening at Ms. F ’ s villa, which was chosen simply because she had no children or spouse on campus and the directors could meet uninterrupted.

At this later meeting, the directors agreed to telephone Trika McDonald, the head of Human Resources at UC. During the discussion, Ms. McDonald asked to be sent a copy of the memo and the directors complied. Because they were at her villa, Ms. F used her computer to send the memo to Ms. McDonald. From there, it found its way to the President of the University of Calgary. Dr. Clinton learned of this and it seems apparent from the evidence of a number of the witnesses that this angered Dr. Clinton and his anger was felt by all of the staff. Ms.

F said she felt particularly vulnerable because the memo had been sent from her computer. [ 37 ] During this same time period, the documentation makes clear that there were other problems, including a problem with procedures for, documentation of and budgeting for expenditures made by various departments and directors. [ 38 ] As a consequence of all of these events, it is evident that the period between the end of March and the middle of May 2008 was particularly chaotic and stressful for all of the staff at UCQ. [ 39 ] After the director ’ s memo reached the office of the President of UC, Dr.

Clinton was quickly called back to UC and his resignation was announced shortly thereafter. [ 40 ] Dr. Clinton ’ s resignation was followed immediately by the appointment of Dr. Sheila Evans as interim Dean. Dr. Evans was thrown into her new role without much notice or ability to prepare and she had only days to tie up loose ends in Calgary, get packed and travel to Qatar. Within a few days of the new Dean ’ s arrival, Colleen Turner, the Director and Vice President of Communications at UC and Carol Stewart, the Vice-Provost International, also arrived in Doha. Ms. Turner and Ms.

Stewart came to Qatar with the approval of the UC administration in Calgary. I am satisfied from the evidence that Dr. Evans, Ms. Turner and Ms. Stewart were all sent to Doha because of serious concerns in the office of senior administration at UC that the Doha campus was in crisis. [ 41 ] The arrival of Dr. Evans, Ms. Turner and Ms. Stewart coincided with International Nurses Week, a particularly stressful time for Ms. F as she and her staff had primary responsibility for the success of the week and had worked hard to plan and implement a number of events.

International Nursing Week was a success by all accounts and this was, undoubtedly, the direct result of Ms. F ’ s hard work. However, by the end of the week, Ms. F was exhausted. [ 42 ] The UCQ environment was stressful for all and particularly so for Ms. F because of International Nursing Week. However, the evidence convinces me that Ms. F ’ s reactions were extreme. She took personally much of what occurred during this time period and seems convinced that she was particularly targeted, when objectively, that does not seem to have been the case. [ 43 ] For example, Ms.

F ’ s reaction to Craig Brown ’ s undoubtedly sexist and boorish behaviour was extreme. I am sure his behaviour was disagreeable and stressful, but on the evidence I heard, it was not directed at Ms. F, herself. Others, notably Jill Brown, who did have comments directly personally towards her, seem to have been able to maintain a perspective and did not allow Mr. Brown to cause undue upset. Ms. Brown ’ s evidence certainly confirmed that Mr. Brown ’ s comments and unacceptable sense of humour were inappropriate and unacceptable but she also saw them as part of his personality.

She said the comments and innuendo started almost as soon as he arrived and as part of her role as head of HR, Ms. Brown spoke to Mr. Brown about his behaviour and attempted, unsuccessfully to alleviate the problem. Ms. Brown confirmed as well, that none of the staff was given any information about the reasons for Mr. Brown ’ s termination in August of 2008 and said that Ms. F ’ s complaint was only one of the factors taken into consideration by Dr. Evans in her decision to terminate Mr. Brown. [ 44 ] It was Ms. F, rather than any of the women who had been specifically targeted by Mr.

Brown, who made the formal sexual harassment complaint. Further, she continues to feel aggrieved that she has not had any formal response to this complaint and, although she is aware that Mr. Brown was terminated from his position in August of 2008, does not think this ends the matter.

[ 45 ] Ms. F was also convinced that the concern about irregularities in procurement in her department was raised by Mr. Brown as retaliation for her having made the harassment complaint and was directed specifically at her. She also concluded from her discussion with Craig Brown about the brochures and business cards transactions, that she had been accused of something and that her integrity was being questioned. However, her concern is not objectively justified. I accept the evidence of Jill Brown, who said that it was one of Ms. F ’ s staff, Mr.

Al Bana and not Craig Brown who originally raised this issue and Mr. Brown only became involved because the Dean had asked him to investigate. I accept, as well, the evidence of Ms. Brown that nothing she saw expressly or impliedly implicated Ms. F in the issue. Ms. F acknowledged that no one ever reprimanded her as a result of the allegation. However, she continues to consider the so called fraud issue an important factor in her stress level at the time and continues to feel aggrieved that she had not had a formal apology. Objectively, however, her concerns seem unjustified. [ 46 ] Ms.

F also felt particularly vulnerable during the directors ’ confrontation of Dean Clinton because her computer was used to forward the memo to Trika McDonald. However, again, objectively speaking, Ms. F ’ s concern seems unjustified. The directors had acted unanimously to draft the memo and send it to Ms. McDonald. All director had signed it. Ms. Brown ’ s evidence, which I accept, was that at the time, no one, Ms. F included, considered which computer the memo was forwarded from to be a significant factor. Indeed, objectively, if anyone was particularly vulnerable to retribution it was Ms. Brown.

She was the one who had originally dropped the memo off for Dr. Clinton and it was her he had called into his office to ask who had been the instigator. The later directors ’ meeting that Dr. Clinton walked in on was also in Ms. Brown ’ s office. Ms. Brown ’ s testimony was that her initial concerns were allayed after Ms. McDonald told her in a follow up conversation that staff were to report directly any attempt by Dr. Clinton to retaliate. Ms. Brown was much comforted by this and told all of the other directors. However, it does not seem that this message allayed Ms. F ’ s concerns. Ms.

F now complains that the memo was forwarded to Ms. McDonald in confidence and she feels that Ms. McDonald breached this confidence by forwarding the memo to the University President. She says this breach of confidence increased her feelings of fear and vulnerability. However, Ms. F ’ s evidence is contradicted by Ms. Brown who did not recall any specific discussion with Ms. McDonald about keeping the memo confidential. Ms.

Brown did recall some concern that Dean Clinton not be told about sending the memo but says that this was due to concern about the possibility that the Dean would retaliate and not because the memo was confidential. Further, Ms. Brown did not recall Dr. Clinton being angry and pounding his fist at her subsequent meeting with him, as Ms. F testified. Ms. F described Ms. Brown as having received a ‘ tongue lashing ’ from Dr. Clinton but Ms. Brown did not describe this meeting in such graphic terms.

She was certainly aware that Dean Clinton was annoyed but said she did not think any of the directors were afraid about the situation or that anyone was more anxious about it than was anyone else. [ 47 ] I conclude from Ms. Brown ’ s evidence that Ms. F ’ s memory is faulty or that it has become clouded over time by subsequent events. I conclude that Ms. F ’ s emotional state either at the time or now has coloured her perception of what occurred and that she was not singled out by the events or by Dr. Clinton. Objectively, what occurred was no more stressful to her than to the other directors. [ 48 ] Ms.

F also found her interaction with Colleen Turner very stressful and was very suspicious about her reasons for coming to Doha. [ 49 ] Ms. Turner was particularly interested in her own portfolio, communications and so her work in Doha did concentrate on Ms. F ’ s portfolio. Her initial assessment of the UCQ communications team was that it was weak. However, I am satisfied on the evidence that Ms. Turner was not sent to Doha because of any preconception at UC of weakness in Ms. F ’ s department.

Instead, the evidence satisfies me that senior members of the UC administration were concerned generally that UCQ was isolated from the main campus as a result of Dr. Clinton ’ s views respecting UCQ ’ s independence from the main campus. Senior UC administration were also concerned by the memorandum received from the senior staff that there was widespread unrest at UCQ. They also knew that Dr. Evans, as a new and inexperienced Dean, would need much support. [ 50 ] Ms. Turner had never met her Qatar counterpart, Ms. F, but even before her arrival, Ms. Turner was in touch asking Ms.

F to provide her with any promotional material and information about her communications strategy and plans that had been developed so that she could review this material en route. She told Ms. F in her initial email that her top priority would be “ to ensure that communication activities in Doha are shared and in line with the other comms-related strategies of the University of Calgary ” . [ 51 ] However, Ms. Turner ’ s impending arrival in Qatar caught Ms. F by surprise and her initial reaction was negative. It seems apparent, as well, that Ms. Turner and Ms. F did not enjoy a particularly cordial relationship.

Ms. Turner ’ s arrival was further marred by a timing mix up. Ms. F went to the airport to meet Ms. Turner but she was not there and arrived a day later. Tensions between the two only increased after that. Ms. Turner wished to meet with Ms. F to discuss the work of and the future goals for public affairs at UCQ. Ms. F was reluctant to give Ms. Turner the time she requested, partially because the pressure of work on International Nursing Week made it difficult but, perhaps, also because of her resentment and suspicion towards Ms. Turner. That Ms. F resented Ms. Turner ’ s presence is clear.

Jill Brown testified that Ms. F called Ms. Turner a bitch in Ms. Brown ’ s presence and was upset when Ms. Brown invited Ms. Stewart and Dr. Evans to join her for dinner and invited Ms. Turner to join them.

[ 52 ] I accept that Ms. Turner ’ s primary reason for coming to Qatar was to support the incoming Dean, as she said. However, I am satisfied that she had a secondary goal: to try to re-establish and strengthen UC communication and control over UCQ external communications policies and activities. This secondary goal put her into direct conflict with Ms. F who had been encouraged by Dr. Clinton to believe that UCQ operated independently of UC. [ 53 ] Ms. Turner strongly advocated for a change in reporting structure for Ms. F, to provide for dual reporting – to both the Dean in UCQ and to Ms. Turner, herself.

The proposed change was viewed as significant. Ms. Turner described it as a “ new world ” in one of her emails. [ 54 ] However, I am satisfied from the evidence that the idea to change the reporting structure for Communications at UCQ did not originate with Ms. Turner. From the evidence of both Dr. Evans and Ms. Turner it seems clear each understood that senior administration at the main campus of UC were concerned about the perceived disconnect between UC and UCQ which had existed during Dean Clinton ’ s tenure. Dr. Evans ’ said she gained the impression from the UC Provost, Dr.

Harrison, that communication between UC and UCQ during Dr. Clinton ’ s tenure had been restricted and sometimes negative. From a meeting of senior administration in late April, 2008, Dr. Evans understood that the stated goal of the senior administration at UC was to try to improve the connections and the relations between UCQ and the main campus. At this same meeting, her appointment as acting Dean of UCQ was announced. Ms.

Turner also indicated in her evidence that the President of UC had expressed concerns about the relationship between UC and UCQ and wished to strengthen the links between the two campuses. [ 55 ] As a consequence of this direction from UC, Dr. Evans took on the task of trying to improve communications as one of her first challenges on her arrival in Qatar. Dr. Evans agreed to implement the change to a joint reporting structure for Ms. F. [ 56 ] Notwithstanding Ms. F ’ s suspicions, I am satisfied that the decision to change the reporting structure in Ms.

F ’ s department was directed to alleviating the communication problems between UCQ and UC and was not directed at Ms. F personally. [ 57 ] Ms. F said the joint appointment came as a complete shock to her on May 18, 2008. However, from my review of the evidence, I find that the possibility of a joint appointment had been raised informally with Ms. F earlier. It was also formally raised at a meeting between Dr. Evans and the directors of UCQ, including Ms. F, on May 15, 2008. Both Ms. Turner and Ms. Stewart were at this meeting as guests. In cross-examination Ms. F would only agree that Ms.

Stewart might have raised the issue “ in passing ” at this meeting, however, emails exchanged at the time as well as the evidence of other meeting participants, make it clear that Ms. F was well aware before May 18 that a joint appointment was being discussed. [ 58 ] In fact, Ms. F expressed her concerns about the joint appointment directly to Dr. Evans by email shortly after the May 15 meeting, saying she had wanted to speak to Dr. Evans “ all this week ” about it. In her email, Ms.

F suggested that the decision respecting a joint appointment be postponed, noting that this proposal would constitute a change in the terms of her contract. She mentioned, as well, some personal reasons for her reluctance to accept a joint appointment but indicated a willingness to coordinate and cooperate with external relations in Calgary, Ms. Turner ’ s department, without the necessity for a formal joint reporting structure. She finished by indicating that she would have to “ properly evaluate [her] career options ” if the joint appointment was still considered appropriate at some future date. [ 59 ] Dr.

Evans forwarded Ms. F ’ s email to both Colleen Turner and Carol Stewart before the May 18 meeting at which Ms. F was told that the joint appointment would commence immediately. In her email, Dr. Evans expressed some reservations about the planned change to a joint appointment, given Ms. F ’ s obvious concerns. However, both Ms. Stewart and Ms. Turner told Dr. Evans that Ms. F ’ s response did not dissuade them and in the end, Dr. Evans was convinced to continue with the process. She signed a letter dated May 18, 2008, to Ms. F offering her the joint appointment. In the letter, Ms.

F was told that “ effective immediately ” her position would require Ms. F to report to Dr. Evans as Dean and also to Colleen Turner. The letter went on to state that because this was a recognized change to the conditions under which Ms. F was hired, she had the option to accept the change in reporting structure as a termination and to take a package and leave her employment. The package included a lump sum payment on execution of a release. [ 60 ] Although Ms. F agreed in cross-examination that Dean Evans told her she would have the Dean ’ s full support if she accepted the joint appointment, Ms.

F took this letter as, effectively, a dismissal. This reaction was understandable. Less than two pages long, well over half the letter was devoted to the terms of what would occur if Ms. F decided to terminate her employment. A release requested by UC as a condition of payment of the offered severance was also attached. As well, the letter was accompanied by a memo from Colleen Turner which also confirmed the joint appointment and set a deadline for the end of May by which time Ms. Turner said she and Ms.

F “ will agree upon a list of specific accountabilities for the next three work months ” and “ will work together to assess your current job

profile and responsibilities ” . [ 61 ] It was Dr. Evans ’ evidence that it was not the intention of the University, nor her intention personally to terminate Ms. F. Dr. Evans said that joint appointments are common in a university setting and gave a number of other examples in which senior academic and administrative staff at the university worked under joint appointments. She said that the communications staff on the majority of faculties at UC had joint appointments with the main campus ’ s external affairs department. [ 62 ] I accept Dr.

Evans ’ evidence that she, personally, did not intend the May 18 letter as an effective dismissal of Ms. F. She liked Ms. F and what she had seen so far of her was positive. She also realized the importance of public affairs to the goals for UCQ and was new in her position as Dean and needed help from her staff. I conclude that Dr. Evans wanted Ms. F to stay in her position. Her email forwarding Ms. F ’ s email to Ms. Turner and Ms. Stewart confirms these intentions. Dr.

Evans says in this email she did not want to “ lose staff ” or be perceived as someone “ coming in with [her] broom ” because that was “ not the objective ” . It was Dr. Evans ’ evidence, that what she termed the ‘ opt out clause ’ was included at the request of the Human Resources Department who told her that because a term of Ms. F ’ s employment was being changed, it was necessary to offer a severance option since it could be construed as a constructive dismissal. [ 63 ] However, although, Dr.

Evans was new to her position and her previous administrative experience was limited I do not accept that she was simply coerced by Ms. Turner into her approval of the change in Ms. F ’ s reporting. Dr. Evans struck me as a woman of some backbone and resolve, able to do her own analysis of a situation or a problem and not ready simply to follow the direction or wishes of others without question. Nonetheless, it was also evident from Dr. Evans ’ testimony that she relied on the advice of others in the administration as she prepared to assume her duties and in the early days after her arrival.

The advice she received from Ms. Turner was that a joint appointment should be considered for Ms. F on a go forward basis and, knowing what she did about the over all goals of UC in terms of UCQ, Dr. Evans took this advice. [ 64 ] Dr. Evans understood that it was an important part of her mandate to work with the UCQ staff to try to improve relationships with the main campus and that communication between UC and UCQ was of particular concern. I conclude that this was the major reason that she supported Ms. Turner ’ s plan to alter the reporting structure of the communications department. [ 65 ] Dr.

Evans also indicated that she had a second reason for her decision. In her early discussions with Ms. F, Dr. Evans had learned from Ms. F that her department was under-resourced. Indeed, Ms. F had told Dr. Evans that she often had to complete low level tasks herself rather than delegating them to others. Dr. Evans saw the joint appointment as a means of ameliorating these resource problems as well. [ 66 ] The May 18 letter was presented at a meeting between Dr. Evans and Ms. F. Ms. Turner, Ms. Stewart and Jill Brown were also there. Dr. Evans recalled that she did most of the talking, acknowledging Ms.

F ’ s concerns but indicating that her decision was to move forward with the joint appointment because of the perceived benefits. She explained, as well, the option of severance but told Ms. F that she wanted her to stay. Dr. Evans said that Ms. F had a few comments but could not specifically recall what these were. She described Ms. F ’ s demeanour at the meeting as quiet but professional. Dr. Evans recalled thinking that the change in reporting structure for Ms. F ’ s position would not be a big problem. [ 67 ] Neither Ms. Turner nor Ms. Brown recalled either that Ms.

F showed much reaction to the proposal at the meeting. [ 68 ] Ms. F has a different memory of her reaction. She said she was shocked and devastated. She said she told Dr. Evans she considered this to be a demotion and that she could not understand why this was happening because she thought she had been doing a good job and the just ended International Nurses Week had been a success. She said no one explained the reasons for the change. [ 69 ] I do not accept Ms. F ’ s evidence that the joint appointment came as a complete shock and surprise to her when it was raised at the May 18 meeting.

She attempted to minimize her knowledge of this possibility before the meeting, calling what she had heard previously, just a “ passing mention ” . However her email to Dr. Evans indicates that what she was responding to was more than a passing mention. The topic had been discussed before the May 18 meeting and Ms. F was sufficiently certain that it was a real possibility to comment in some detail to Dr. Evans. I conclude that while she was obviously unhappy with the decision, the joint appointment did not come as a surprise. I also find that Ms. F ’ s reaction was subdued but professional, as described by Dr.

Evans and the others and none of

those at the meeting could have had any reasonable idea that the suggestion had so psychologically harmed Ms. F that any special measures were necessary to protect her. Events After May 18 and Until Ms. F ’ s First Departure from Doha: [ 70 ] After the meeting, Ms. F went back to her office . Jill Brown put her head in a short while later and asked Ms. F if she was okay and whether she could take

part in the scheduled interview. Ms. F said she could not. Ms. F ’ s evidence was that the just finished joint appointment meeting had made her too upset to do this interview. However, Ms. Brown ’ s evidence was that it was not until she reminded Ms. F that Ms. Turner would also be present at the interview, that Ms. F became upset and said she could not participate. [ 71 ] Ms. F did not participate in the telephone job interview. Instead, she met with the staff in her department and showed them the memo, authored by Ms. Turner she had received. Ms. F said her staff was surprised and somewhat upset.

She then left the campus and went home. She telephoned a friend, Michael Vertigan, who was her counterpart at Weil Cornell, one of the other North American universities with a presence in Qatar. She drove to meet him and during their meeting, also showed him the memo. She testified that she did not recall telephoning him and said this was the first time she could remember blanking out. She called this “ losing time ” . After meeting with Mr. Vertigan, she returned to her villa and spoke with her sister via Skype.

She recalled crying during this conversation and said she had a hard time explaining to her sister what had happened. She recalled feeling depressed, shaky and sick to her stomach. [ 72 ] The next day, she returned to campus for a meeting with Ms. Turner, who provided her with what Ms. F termed a list of her new responsibilities and, according to Ms. F, went through each point. She said that Ms. Turner also told her that there would be a three month period to determine how well she could accomplish these new responsibilities. Ms. F ’ s impression was that she was being put on probation and that Ms.

Turner felt that she was now in charge. Ms. F described Ms. Turner ’ s demeanour during this meeting as being “ like the cat that ate the mouse ” . [ 73 ] Although Ms. F ’ s impression was that the document was a list of her new responsibilities, that is not the way it reads. Certainly it sets out very specifically certain goals and tasks. However, they are not by any means all goals and tasks to be accomplished by Ms. F. Many points detail tasks that Ms. Turner will take on and seem designed to aid Ms. F – such as references that Ms. Turner will put Ms.

F in touch with other specifically named individuals and notations that Ms. Turner will provide information or content. Many others say JR/CT after the notation and seem to suggest joint responsibility. [ 74 ] That same day, Ms. F also met with Jill Brown. Ms. F told her about her meetings with her staff and with her friend Mr. Vertigan of the day before. Ms. F said she was very upset at this meeting and was crying. She said she felt overwhelmed and thought she would be unable to do all of the things on the ‘ to do ’ list she and Ms.

Turner had discussed as well as her regular activities and those set out in the business plan. Ms. Brown ’ s memory of this meeting was somewhat different. Her evidence was that she met with Ms. F to see how she was doing because she knew she had left campus the day before, quite upset. Ms. F told her of her meeting with Mr. Vertigan and volunteered that she had showed him both the letter respecting the joint appointment and Ms. Turner ’ s memo. Ms. F told her that Mr. Vertigan ’ s response was to laugh and say this was a joke. According to Ms. Brown, she then said to Ms.

F that whatever she chose to do, the university was open to options as to how she wanted to discuss this with her own staff. According to Ms. Brown, Ms. F ’ s response was that would not be necessary since she had already shared the letter with her staff. This concerned Ms. Brown, as director of HR. She was worried that staff morale would be affected. Her response was to discuss what had occurred with the Dean. [ 75 ] On May 20, Ms. F met with Dean Evans. Ms. Brown was also present. Ms. F testified that before the meeting, she thought its purpose was to discuss the joint reporting scheme.

Much to her surprise, she said, instead Dean Evans confronted her about her actions on May 18. Ms. F ’ s evidence was that Dean Evans told her that by speaking to someone from another university, she had embarrassed the University. She also criticized her for sharing the Turner memo with her staff and for leaving the campus without permission and without telling anyone where she was going. Ms. F recalled that Dean Evans told her she had spoken with someone from the main campus the evening before and had been advised that Ms. F should be terminated for insubordination and that termination could result unless Ms.

F came up with a viable damage control plan. Ms. F said this conversation and the Dean ’ s anger were unexpected. She said she was stunned and tried at first to defend herself. She said she had not told Ms. Brown with whom she had spoken on the 18 th but that it was clear that Dean Evans knew she had spoken to someone at Weil Cornell. Ms. F said she felt betrayed by Ms. Brown. She said she had thought she was speaking to Ms. Brown as a colleague and that Ms. Brown would keep the conversation confidential. She said she could not believe that Ms. Brown had taken this to the Dean. [ 76 ] Ms. F characterized Ms.

Brown ’ s actions in speaking to the Dean as a breach of confidentiality. However, objectively that cannot be so. There was no evidence that Ms. Brown promised to keep what Ms. F said to her confidential or that Ms. F even asked for this. Further, Ms. Brown was in charge of HR at UCQ and as part of her duties, had a responsibility to take action if she was concerned

something could have a detrimental effect on staff morale. Ms. F knew or should have known that this was the case. [ 77 ] During the course of the discussion on May 20, Ms. F said she gave Dean Evans a copy of the document that Ms. Turner had given to her the day before. She said Dean Evans called it a list of deliverables, not an effort to aid her. She ended by telling the Dean that she needed professional help and a leave of absence. Ms. F said that by this time, she was sobbing and was incoherent. [ 78 ] Ms. Brown described Ms. F as upset at the May 20 meeting. She recalled that Ms.

F came to the meeting with notes and recalled, as well, that Ms. F had said she needed professional and emotional help. She did not recall that the Dean was angry but did recall her being firm. Ms. Brown said her own concern, as Director of HR, was that Ms. F had spoken to her staff and it was for this reason she spoke to the Dean. Ms. Brown was concerned the staff would be upset by the memo and worried about their own positions. She recalled that the Dean was more concerned about the external contact made by Ms. F. She recalled, as well, that Ms.

F was given the rest of the week off. [ 79 ] When it became obvious at the meeting how upset Ms. F was, Ms. Brown volunteered to help Ms. F obtain the help she said she needed. There was no employee assist program in Doha. Ms. Brown recalled telling Ms. F that she would contact HR in Calgary to try to access the Staff Wellness Centre. She also told Ms. F that she would get her some names of counsellors in Qatar. It is clear from later emails that Ms. Brown did do these things. In her view, the Dean was supportive of the efforts to get Ms. F some help but remained firm in her concerns about Ms.

F ’ s behaviour the day before. [ 80 ] From Dean Evans ’ evidence it is clear that she did take very seriously Ms. F ’ s actions in revealing her concerns about the change in reporting structure to those outside the University. UCQ was the first Canadian university to have a presence in Qatar and the only foreign university not present in an area called Education City where all six of the American universities were housed on one compound. Dean Evans considered these universities to be highly influential and important to UC in building its own position in Qatar. When the Dean learned from Jill Brown that Ms.

F had been to see a Public Relations person in Education City, upset and wanting their opinion and support, she sought advice from the UC provost and from legal counsel. In Dean Evans ’ view, the academic community in Qatar was very small. She was very concerned about the long term harm such behaviour could cause the University. [ 81 ] Dean Evans did not think she yelled during this meeting but did describe the meeting as intense. She said she told Ms. F that she questioned her judgment as Director of Public Affairs for UCQ, in going to another public affairs director with complaints about her treatment.

Dean Evans questioned how Ms. F could do this and yet, as the public face of the university, represent UCQ as a wonderful institution in which to work and to which to send students. [ 82 ] Dr. Evans said she could see as the meeting progressed that Ms. F was becoming more and more upset. She was crying and Dr. Evans could see that Ms. F was in serious emotional distress. She said she could also see that her question about what Ms. F would do to rectify the situation would have to be put on hold and that the immediate priority had to be to get Ms. F the help she so obviously needed. Dr. Evans says she told Ms.

F to take the remainder of the week off and they talked about getting Ms. F some professional help. She confirmed that it was agreed that Ms. Brown would try to get some information from both HR in Calgary and from the College of the North Atlantic locally, an institution with which UCQ had a close relationship. [ 83 ] According to Ms. F, Dr. Evans ’ response when asked was that she would not consider a leave of absence for her. However, Ms. F went on leave under UC ’ s short term disability plan the next day. [ 84 ] By the next day, May 21, Ms.

F had made initial contact with the Calgary-based Staff Wellness Centre. She was, however, concerned that Jill Brown had routed the request for help for her through Trika McDonald, Ms. Brown ’ s superior at UC. Ms. F sent an email to both Ms. Brown and Dr. Evans expressing concern about the contact with Ms. McDonald and stating her wish that the issue of her health be kept confidential among only herself, Ms. Brown, and Dr. Evans in addition to the Wellness Centre. Dr. Evans ’ reply was that Ms. Brown had simply followed through to do what she said she would by contacting Human Resources in Calgary to aid Ms.

F in her contact with the Wellness Centre. Dr. Evans gave similar evidence at trial. [ 85 ] Almost immediately, thereafter, Ms. F began to experience other medical problems. She is a two time cancer survivor and her immediate fear was that the symptoms she exhibited were caused by a new cancer, secondary to the ones she had suffered previously. Her symptoms were thoroughly investigated in Doha and all test results were negative for recurring cancer, although some

tumour markers were elevated. During the course of this testing, she was hospitalized for a few days in Doha because she had to be put under a general anaesthetic in order for the tests to be conducted. During her hospital stay, she was visited by Ms. Brown and by Dr. Evans. [ 86 ] Ms. F also received some treatment for her mental health issues from a psychologist, a mental health counsellor and later a psychiatrist. She was treated with antidepressants and supportive psychotherapy. It was the psychiatrist ’ s view that Ms. F was suffering from depression. On June 16, 2008, he recommended that Ms.

F return to her home country where she could see her oncologist and obtain regular psychiatric care. The letter also indicates that “ she had shown remarkable improvement ” . When Ms. F forwarded this letter to the Staff Wellness Centre in Calgary, her accompanying email said she thought this paragraph was included in error by the typist from another letter. [ 87 ] Ms. F said that almost immediately after May 21, she began to feel pressured by Dr. Evans and Jill Brown to return immediately to Canada. Ms.

F resisted this pressure, telling them that Doha was her home and that she was comfortable with the medical care she was receiving there. However, she had previously planned to return to Canada during the summer break after a stay in Europe and seemed prepared to go ahead with those previously made plans. [ 88 ] On June 21, communication from the Staff Wellness Centre to Dean Evans and Ms. Brown indicated that they accepted the recommendations of the physicians in Doha and supported Ms. F ’ s plan to return to Canada. [ 89 ] Jill Brown ’ s evidence was that she and Dean Evans did have initial concerns about Ms.

F remaining in Qatar. Until they got the letter from the Staff Wellness Centre, there was uncertainty about whether or when Ms. F could travel. The summer vacation was approaching and for a period UCQ would literally shut down. The staff would all leave the compound and, if she remained in Doha, Ms. F would be alone and without any support network. Ms. Brown also wondered if it might be easier for Ms. F to get medical help in Canada. [ 90 ] Although she denied it in her evidence, from the email correspondence at the time, I conclude Ms. Brown was also a bit suspicious about how ill Ms. F really was.

She certainly appeared better by mid June and Ms. Brown was concerned when it appeared that Ms. F planned to take her previously arranged vacation in Europe before returning to Canada. To Ms. Brown ’ s knowledge, Ms. F would be accompanied on this trip by Mr. Al Bana, one of the staff members in Ms. F ’ s department. Ms. Brown understood that the University did not provide vacation coverage while an employee was receiving sick benefits, wanted to ensure that this was communicated to Ms. F by the Wellness Centre, and told them this. [ 91 ] Ms. F learned of Ms.

Brown ’ s contact with the Wellness Centre almost immediately. She complained to Dr. Evans and directly to Ms. Brown about this communication and asked that Ms. Brown, as well, be excluded from further communications respecting her health. All of those involved complied with Ms. F ’ s request and Ms. Brown was excluded from any further such communications. Ms. F also asked Ms. Brown to send her copies of all of her emails sent to the Wellness Centre on the subject of Ms. F ’ s health. Ms. Brown did so. [ 92 ] The evidence shows that the May 20 meeting was not the sole cause of Ms.

F ’ s emotional breakdown, although it seems to have been the final trigger. Even before this meeting with Dean Evans, on her evidence, Ms. F had realized that she was not functioning well. She had clearly contemplated changing jobs, although the refusal by Dr. Latifah to provide the necessary ‘ no objection ’ letter made this option impossible. She had been prepared to ask for a leave of absence for stress-related medical reasons even before the meeting with Dr. Evans. This is clear from a document in which Ms.

F set out her thoughts in anticipation of her meeting with Dean Evans. [ 93 ] I am convinced by the evidence, however, that no one could have known before May 20, that Ms. F was at a breaking point. She masked her own symptoms, tried to continue on as usual, and sought no help. [ 94 ] Ms. F has claimed that UC and its staff deliberately or negligently acted to cause her emotional distress. I am not satisfied this is so. [ 95 ] Despite her suspicions about Ms. F ’ s travel plans, I find that Ms. Brown only did what her position required of her in

reporting her conversation with Ms. F to the Dean and in following up with the Staff Wellness Centre in Calgary. One of the tasks of the HR person in Doha was to administer sick leave files. Ms. Brown ’ s testimony, which I accept, was that it was part of this administrative function to contact the Staff Wellness Centre. Further, Ms. Brown was, herself, preparing to go away on vacation and she wanted to ensure continuity on the file in her absence. She also had another reason to contact the Wellness Centre.

The service provider in Calgary for the Wellness Centre was in the process of changing from one company to another at the time and Ms. Brown wanted to ensure a smooth transition in the administration of Ms. F ’ s sick leave. Lastly, as she was required to classify Ms. F ’ s status for UC administration, Ms. Brown did need to know whether the week Ms. F planned to spend in Germany was to be classified as vacation or as sick leave since different rules and considerations applied. [ 96 ] I am also satisfied that Ms. F misunderstood or has forgotten what was discussed at the May 20 meeting with Dean Evans and Ms.

Brown. She expressed surprise and unhappiness that Ms. Brown had contacted Trika McDonald to access help at the Wellness Centre but I find from the evidence of both Ms. Brown and Dean Evans that this was exactly what had been discussed at this meeting. As Ms. Brown explained, the phone number for the Wellness Centre was simply a general line. Given that and the nine or ten hour time difference between the two campuses, it was important to take special measures to ensure that Ms. F could get in actual contact someone as quickly as possible.

Nothing that was done betrayed a confidence or was designed to increase Ms. F ’ s anxiety. [ 97 ] I am equally satisfied that the effort to have Ms. F go back to Canada immediately and before the summer break were also an effort to get help for her and not to pressure her or otherwise negatively affect her well being. Events After Ms. F ’ s First Departure from Doha and until Her Second Departure: [ 98 ] Ms. F left Doha and in accordance with her previous plans, went back to Canada, after staying in Germany for about a week.

Her evidence was that she spent most of her time sleeping in a hotel room although she did travel around a bit. It was her evidence that this was not a tourist visit but simply an effort at pulling herself together. [ 99 ] Once she got back to Canada, Ms. F travelled to Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver Edmonton, and Calgary during the month of July, 2008. Mr. Al Bana had travelled to Canada before her and she met him in Calgary. They then travelled together for at least some of this period. Ms. F saw her general practitioner in Winnipeg and saw her oncologist in Vancouver.

She did not see a psychiatrist while she was in Canada but did see a psychologist. [ 100 ] Dr. Evans was, herself, back in Canada during the month of July and did not have direct communication with Ms. F during that month. However, she did follow up with Jody Fraser, the HR person in Calgary in charge of Ms. F ’ s sick leave file in Jill Brown ’ s absence. When she learned from Ms. Fraser of Ms. F ’ s travels around Canada, Dr. Evans said she found it difficult to understand why Ms. F had so many care givers in so many different locations – Calgary, Vancouver, and Winnipeg.

She considered this an unusual way to get care. [ 101 ] Further, Dean Evans learned that the Staff Wellness Centre was experiencing some difficulty in getting medical updates from Ms. F. They had difficulty contacting her and after they did, Ms. F expressed concern about whether her Winnipeg general practitioner would be prepared to complete a Fitness for Work report dealing with her psychiatric issues. The necessary report was obtained quite late and it was only on July 21, that the Wellness Centre staff learned of and supported the recommendation that Ms.

F remain off work for a further three or four month period. [ 102 ] This information was communicated to Dr. Evans, who then had to make a decision about whether to get a temporary replacement for Ms. F. She also learned that Ms. F still intended to go back to Doha at the end of July once the summer vacation period was over. It was in this context that Dr. Evans sought advice from Rita Hayre, at the Staff Wellness Centre, from Jody Fraser and from UC legal counsel about what to do. Dr. Evans was clearly frustrated.

As she put it, she had an ill employee who was on leave and who appeared to be getting only a patchwork of medical care. She also had a rudderless department in need of leadership and was uncertain about when or if the employee could get back to work. From the various emails that went back and forth at the time, it is also clear that Dr. Evans was concerned about having an employee on medical leave who was not visibly ill living in close proximity to the other staff on the compound where her mere presence could create difficulties for a new acting director. Dr.

Evans thought that the best alternative would be for Ms. F to remain in Canada until she was medically able to return to work. Dr. Evans was advised, however, that there was no mechanism by which the University could insist that Ms. F not return to Doha.

[ 103 ] Ms. F did return to Doha as originally planned on July 31. No one from the University spoke directly to Ms. F before her return to tell her that the University did not support her return to Doha. [ 104 ] Jill Brown ’ s evidence was that their expectation at UCQ was that Ms. F would not return until she was fit to go back to work. She agreed in cross-examination that the administration of UCQ would have preferred that Ms. F remain in Canada under the circumstances and were not pleased that she had returned. Ms. Brown thought that someone at the Staff Wellness Centre had communicated to Ms.

F that the administration in Doha preferred her to remain in Canada until she was well enough to work but I find that no one did. [ 105 ] During the course of her discussions with Ms. Fraser about Ms. F ’ s situation, Dr. Evans also discussed Ms. F ’ s financial benefits. Because Ms. F had been on short term disability since May, Ms. Fraser told Dr. Evans that Ms. F ’ s short term disability benefits would run out in November. Further, she told her that under the terms of the long term disability insurance policy, Ms. F would not be eligible for LTD benefits if she was not a resident of Canada. Ms.

Fraser advised Dr. Evans, as well, that Ms. F should not be eligible for paid accommodation in Doha if she was on long term disability and that as Ms. F had returned to Doha using her vacation entitlement, her return to Canada should not be paid for by the University if she needed to return to seek additional treatment. Dr. Evans was told, lastly, that under the terms of the short term disability plan and given her length of service, Ms.

F should have been paid her full salary for only the first 20 days of her short term disability leave and should have begun to receive only 70% of her salary for the balance of her short term disability term. While this information was provided to Dr. Evans, none of it was directly provided to Ms. F before her return to Doha. Nor had she ever previously been given any information to indicate that if she was ever on sick leave, she would not be eligible to receive the transportation and living allowance. [ 106 ] It fell to Dr. Evans, who was still in Canada at the time, to communicate all of this to Ms. F.

She did so by teleconference with Ms. F on August 1 just after Ms. F ’ s return to Doha. In addition, Ms. F was told at this teleconference that an acting director would be appointed for the duration of her sick leave and that it was important that Ms. F not interfere with her replacement. She was told, as well, that she should not try to influence or have any work related communication with the staff in her department. Lastly, she was told that her basic income would be reduced to 70% immediately and she would no longer be paid either the living allowance or the transportation allowance.

The evidence was that 70% of base salary totalled $66,150. [ 107 ] The policy respecting reduction of income to 70% for those on sick leave was clear and applied to all UC employees. The UC

summary of staff benefits says this: “ Sick leave: Illness commencing in the first 3 months within the first year of employment; 70% of normal salary ” . This was a term of Ms. F ’ s employment contract. [ 108 ] However, I find that there was no specific UC policy pursuant to which an employee was not entitled to continue to receive the living and travel allowance if on sick leave. These allowances were specific to the UCQ campus, the first overseas venture for UC.

The establishment of this venture was still new at the time and UC seems to have been feeling its way with respect to how sick leave policy would apply for employees at UCQ. Ms. Fraser agreed in cross-examination that if Ms. F was entitled to be paid 70% of her entire salary amount including travel and living allowance, the total amount she would have received would be $86,047. [ 109 ] Ms. F ’ s evidence was that she did not seriously consider remaining in Canada when she was back on vacation.

She felt that she no longer belonged here and that her real home was in Qatar and her colleagues there had become like family to her. [ 110 ] Ms. F characterized Dr. Evan ’ s demeanour at the August 1 teleconference discussion as “ very cold ” . What she understood, from it was that she could have no communication at all with her staff or with anyone else on the compound, since it would not be possible to talk without discussion about work. She concluded that her over all salary would be effectively cut by 50%. Ms. F said she was shocked and devastated by this conversation.

She was suspicious of the reason a replacement was being appointed to serve as acting director for her and could not understand why it would make any difference if she discussed anything with her colleagues. She said this request shocked her and she could not understand how “ even on sick leave, I was being slapped ” . [ 111 ] As Dr. Evans had said she would, she sent a follow up letter to Ms. F, dated August 6, outlining their discussion. This letter also addressed Ms. F ’ s residency permit and said that Qatar would not renew her permit unless she was fit to return to work.

The letter said, that she was therefore, expected to leave Qatar before September 1 when her residency permit expired. The letter told her she must submit her passport to HR seven days prior to her departure. Although the letter did not indicate this, other evidence makes it clear that the passport had to be submitted in order to get the necessary departure permit to allow her to legally leave Qatar. It also had to be submitted to formally cancel the residency permit, even though it was set to expire on September 1.

[ 112 ] Again, Ms. F felt she was being specifically targeted by the University. She sought help and support from both her psychiatrist and her mental health counsellor although he was temporarily out of the country. [ 113 ] During their teleconference, Ms. F asked Dr. Evans if her job would still be available to her at the end of her sick leave. Dr. Evans says she deflected the question and told Ms. F to concentrate on getting well, suggesting the question could await her return to work. Nonetheless, it is clear that the advice Dr. Evans had already gotten from Jody Fraser was that Ms.

F should be terminated on her return because the employment relationship was irretrievably broken. [ 114 ] Although, Ms. F ’ s view was that she was being specifically targeted, I am satisfied from the evidence of Dr. Evans and Jody Fraser that was not so. In most ways, Ms. F was treated in the same fashion as any other UC employee on medical leave. All are required to provide medical updates of their status. All are subject to the same rules respecting long term and short term disability payments. With one exception, where there were differences in the way Ms.

F was treated from other UC employees in her situation, these stemmed from the fact that this was the first time that HR had dealt with an employee on sick leave also stationed off shore. For these employees, there was no established policy respecting payment for travel or for whether an employee on medical leave could continue to live in paid accommodation. Nor was there an established policy respecting whether the living or transportation allowance would continue to be paid on medical leave. However, another employee at UCQ was on medical leave at the same time as Ms.

F and the evidence was that she also stopped receiving both the living allowance and the transportation allowance while on leave. [ 115 ] The one exceptional circumstance for Ms. F was that all of this information was provided to her only after she had returned to Doha and not while she was still in Canada. I find that the provision of this information to Ms. F was poorly handled. Even before she left Qatar at the end of June, Ms. F should have been told of the University ’ s expectation that she would not come back to Doha until she was able to work. This would have allowed Ms.

F the month of July to make arrangements for accommodation in Canada and to set up a structure to obtain professional help. [ 116 ] However, I am satisfied that the failure to give Ms. F this information was simply an error and not deliberate. Ms. F had the bad luck to fall ill during an exceptional period of rapid changes. UCQ was a new facility and a first venture overseas for UC. Dr. Evans was a brand new dean and was feeling her way. UCQ was shutting down for the summer for the first time and all of the staff, including Ms. Brown and the Dean, were leaving Doha for the month of July.

Lastly the Wellness Centre was changing care providers. This series of changes created the perfect storm for lines of communication to be tangled or broken. They were. I am satisfied that the University dropped the ball in not providing this information to Ms. F before she left but I find, as well, that this failure in communication, while exceedingly unfortunate, was inadvertent and not deliberate. [ 117 ] I am also satisfied that the decisions made by UC were made in good faith and not to try to make things difficult for Ms. F or in an effort to make her resign, as was suggested by the Plaintiff. Ms.

Fraser made it clear in her evidence that she gave advice to Dean Evans about possible termination of Ms. F ’ s employment in the context of Dean Evans ’ concerns respecting the events of May 20. Ms. Fraser told Dean Evans both that the decision to terminate was the Dean ’ s to make and that any termination was a quite separate issue from the issue of administration of Ms. F ’ s medical leave. I accept Dean Evans ’ evidence that, at the time, she had not yet decided whether to terminate Ms. F and that decision would not be made until the end of Ms. F ’ s medical leave. [ 118 ] Ms.

F said that her colleagues had been very supportive before she left the compound at the end of June but when she returned at the end of July, things were very different. She felt people were avoiding her. Her testimony was that few people dropped by to see her and those who did, did so in a rather clandestine fashion. Ms. F said she spent much of her time alone and felt very isolated, depressed and anxious. She felt that things were getting worse not better. Ms. F felt persecuted. She said she thought new policies were put into place just for her and that these gave her a whole new set of problems to deal with.

She said she was lied to and did not know whom she could trust. Particularly, she thought she could not trust the University. On her sister DFB ’ s advice, Ms. F contacted a lawyer, Dan Scott in Edmonton, and involved him in her situation. [ 119 ] Ms. F provided the lawyer with a copy of the August 6 letter from Dr. Evans and Mr. Scott responded with an emailed letter to Dr. Evans, copied to Ms. Brown, and dated August 19, 2008. The letter set out Ms. F ’ s position on the points raised by Dr. Evans in the August 6 letter. [ 120 ] Her position was this:

Ms. F did not wish to vacate Qatar. She felt that leaving would jeopardize her treatment and wished to have her residency permit renewed. She considered it part of UC ’ s duty to accommodate her during her illness, asked that they renew her residency permit and to take immediate steps to do so; Ms. F was concerned that if her residency permit was not renewed and she left Qatar she would be required to pay out her car loan in its entirety, causing her financial hardship; Ms.

F had not been previously aware that her salary would be reduced to 70%, that she would lose her travel and living allowance, and that her long term disability eligibility would be affected if she remained in Qatar. Mr. Scott said he wanted a copy of the policy documents and the Great West insurance coverage documents to review; Ms. F wished to retain her position in Qatar and to return to work as soon as she received medical clearance to do so. [ 121 ] Ms. F sent her own email accompanying that of Mr. Scott asking to receive a copy of any reply sent by the University to Mr.

Scott. [ 122 ] At this point, UC retained outside counsel to deal with this matter on behalf of Dr. Evans and UCQ. Mr. Michael Ford of a Calgary law firm, replied to Mr. Scott by faxed letter on the same day. This letter said that Mr. Ford would reply to Mr. Scott ’ s letter within a few days. [ 123 ] Mr. Ford did, in fact, respond the next day, saying the following: The residency permit was issued by the State of Qatar and not UC. Qatar did not issue Permits for people who are not actively at work and UC could not misinform Qatar respecting Ms. F ’ s status; UC ’ s position was that because of Ms.

F ’ s lengthy illness, she should be repatriated to Canada. UC believed she was able to travel; To facilitate her return, UC was prepared as a goodwill gesture to cover the airfare back to Canada provided travel occurred before the expiry of her current residency permit. [ 124 ] Ms. F said she has little memory of what happened in August except that she does recall on August 21, hearing sounds of laughter from a welcome back barbeque party at the central recreation centre. Her department had arranged this but she said she was not invited.

She recalled feeling overwhelmed, incredibly isolated and powerless because “ everything had been taken away ” from her and she had “ no way to defend herself or make it right ” . [ 125 ] Her next memory she said, was of being moved from a general hospital to a psychiatric hospital by ambulance on August 28. [ 126 ] Ms. F has no memory of her suicide attempt on August 21 but it is clear from the evidence of others that she took an overdose of prescription pills in her villa sometime on August 21. [ 127 ] Ms. F did not attend the welcome back barbeque although she had been expected to do so according to both Mr.

Siddiqui, and Dr. Gordon Plummer, both of whom gave evidence for the Plaintiff. What she did do was email her siblings in Canada copying her lawyer, with what was clearly a suicide note. She had also laid out on the desk top next to her computer, all of her tax and financial information as well as her will.

[ 128 ] On August 22, Mr. Siddiqui said he was contacted by another staff member Jackie Dumont, also a friend of Ms. F. Ms. Dumont told him she was worried about Ms. F. She had made plans to get together with her but although her car was in her driveway, Ms. F was not answering her phone or replying to emails. Mr. Siddiqui testified that he and Ms. Dumont went to Ms. F ’ s villa and let themselves in. They found Ms. F unconscious on her bed with pill bottles scattered around her. They were not able to rouse her and called an ambulance. On the evidence, I am satisfied that the number of pills taken by Ms.

F would have been lethal had she not been found. She was transported to the hospital, with Ms. Dumont riding in the ambulance and Mr. Siddiqui and his wife following in their own vehicle. [ 129 ] I heard no expert evidence on the law of Qatar. Nonetheless, I am satisfied from the evidence I heard, that all the expatriate staff of UCQ understood that in Qatar, suicide is an illegal act, punishable criminally. Mr. Siddiqui ’ s evidence was that he was contacted by the police within three or four hours of taking Ms. F to the hospital and was contacted twice more within the next day or two.

The focus of the police was an investigation of the suicide attempt. [ 130 ] Notwithstanding Ms. F ’ s impression that she was not invited to the barbeque, I find that she was. Ms. Brown ’ s evidence was that the invitation to the barbeque was sent by email to all staff and Ms. F was still on that group mailing list and would have received the invitation in the general mailing as a matter of course. That Ms. F was invited also seems apparent from the fact that both Mr. Siddiqui and Dr. Plummer, both friendly to Ms.

F, testified that they had expected to see her at the barbeque and were surprised when she did not attend. I conclude that Ms. F was not excluded from the invitation to the barbeque. [ 131 ] Mr. Siddiqui and Dr. Plummer both ga

[…]