.png;w=960)
A former Adjala-Tosorontio employee is suing the township along with a number of current and former staff and councillors — including Midland CAO Rhonda Bunn.
In a statement of claim filed in Barrie court earlier this month, Nadeem Munawar Dean contends that alleged incidents connected to the named defendants led to his decision to go on sick leave and his eventual termination as the township’s finance director/treasurer.
Some of the more serious allegations centre around Bunn, who became the CAO of Adjala-Tosorontio in August, 2020, and is accused in the statement of claim of a campaign of ongoing harassment against Dean, who was fired two years ago.
Besides Bunn, who lives in Wasaga Beach and left her position in Adjala-Tosorontio on April 12, 2022, the lawsuit also names Chris Robinson of Cannington, Deborah Hall-Chancey of Everett, Annette Bays of Loretto, Jonathan Pita of Colgan and Scott Anderson of Lisle.
None of the allegations have been tested in court and the defendants have 20 days to respond to the claim.
Bunn, who became Midland's CAO last July, did not return requests for comment in time for publication.
Dean is seeking $102,000 for wrongful dismissal and $60,000 in “moral damages,” $50,000 for intentional infliction of mental suffering and $70,000 for “damages for injury to the plaintiff’s dignity, feelings and self-respect, pursuant the Human Rights Code.” Dean is also seeking $100,000 in aggravated damages, $400,000 in punitive damages and “special damages in an amount to be determined at trial."
According to the statement of claim, Dean resides in Alliston and was employed by the township of Adjala-Tosorontio as director of finance/treasurer from October 7, 2019 until April 27, 2022 when his employment was terminated.
The claim further goes on to say that Robinson fired Dean “under false pretenses, thereby acting outside of the scope of his employment as chief building officer.”
According to the claim, Bunn was Dean’s supervisor and “overstepped her authority as chief administrative officer, including violating statutes and the policies and procedures of the township.”
Hall-Chancey, Bays, Pita and Anderson were all township councillors at the time, according to the claim, and “were directly involved in the decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment, allegedly for cause and engaged in actions and omissions displaying bad faith and/or malice ... and/or abused their role as elected representatives of the township, the lawsuit says, adding that by voting together, the defendant councillors comprised a majority on the council."
The lawsuit goes on to outline Dean’s employment with the township for which he was paid $115,752 per year, a comprehensive benefits package and an OMERS pension plan.
“The contract also included a termination clause that purported to restrict the plaintiff’s entitlement upon termination, with or without cause, to the minimum amounts set by the Employment Standards Act. The plaintiff pleads that the said termination clause was unenforceable, null and void as being contrary to law," notes the statement of claim.
The claim further notes that “during the entire course of his employment, the plaintiff had never been justifiably reprimanded or disciplined for any form of misconduct, nor been found to have engaged in any wrongdoing.”
While the lawsuit says Dean had a “harmonious working relationship” with Bunn’s predecessor and added the role of acting CAO upon Gagan Sindhu’s departure, he experienced “work-related health problems and deteriorating relationship with Bunn” after she was hired on Aug. 10, 2020 “upon the recommendation of Hall-Chancey.
“In voting to approve her friend Bunn in this capacity, Hall-Chancey failed to disclose the conflict of interest to township council,” the claim states.
“Without the required approval of council, shortly thereafter Bunn hired her friend Tracie Howell as executive assistant to the CAO and human resources generalist. Accordingly, as a friend and subordinate of Bunn, Howell effectively lacked the ability to adequately address complaints against Bunn," the claim states.
According to the claim, a month after being hired, Bunn asked the plaintiff to mislead or lie to members of the public or council on various occasions in violation of his fiduciary role as treasurer. The plaintiff refused or suggested alternatives to these requests, but Bunn declined these options, the statement notes.
“As a result, Bunn punished the plaintiff through various strategies, including ... threats of termination, removal of authority, denial of reasonable accommodation requests, disingenuous performance improvement plans and harassment, the latter of which will not be pursued as part of the claim in the within action.”
The claim goes on to discuss how Bunn’s “tactics” caused Dean to experience high rates of work-related stress, for which he sought medical attention, beginning on Dec. 21, 2021.
In one instance, the claim says Dean told Bunn he was ill and “instead of permitting him to take a sick day, Bunn treated the plaintiff in a profoundly disrespectful manner, unreasonably delaying his return home to convalesce.”
The notice says Dean eventually went on a leave of absence and was ordered back to work by Bunn before its completion.
Dean was eventually diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, according to the statement of claim., which also noted how work-related stress was impacting his home life.
“Consumed with the stress of his work, the plaintiff had difficulty holding conversations and participating in activities with family members,” the claim states.
“He had enjoyed hiking, playing and otherwise interacting with his children, (but) no longer had the energy or inclination to engage in such activities, thereby harming the familial relationship.”
On Jan. 12, 2022, the claim notes that Adjala-Tosorontio council met in camera to address Bunn’s request that Dean be fired for allegedly failing to complete the township’s budget on time.
“In fact, Bunn had mandated that the plaintiff cease work on the budget a month earlier, then blamed him for failing to submit it to council on time,” the claim says.
The claim goes on to say that by recorded vote, council rejected Dean’s termination, but “the defendant councillors voted in favour of an alternative recommendation from Bunn to impose a performance improvement plan (PIP), which was intended to permit termination in the near future, rather than facilitate an improvement in the plaintiff’s work performance.”
From there, the claim presents a number of situations that it says were orchestrated to try to paint Dean in an unsavoury light.
On Feb. 24, Dean filed a harassment complaint against Bunn with council members, pursuant to the Harassment Policy and the Whistle Blower Policy and claiming the protection afforded by the latter, the statement says.
However, early the next morning, “rather than acknowledging receipt of the complaint to the plaintiff, Hall-Chancey forwarded the complaint to Bunn,” the statement of claim notes.
“Likewise, without the courtesy of an acknowledgement, Pita and Bays did the same. Bays’ email also copied Dana Clarke and Chris Rutters, subordinates of the plaintiff, neither of whom were in a position to respond to the complaint," alleges the statement.
"Hall-Chancey, Bays and Pita knew, or ought to have known, that the plaintiff’s complaint constituted confidential information” and that the immediate disclosure of same could reasonably be expected to result in reprisal and other sanctions by the CAO against the plaintiff.”
That same day, the claim continues, Bunn “retaliated” by filing her own complaint against the plaintiff, which “contained false allegations of harassment.”
“Having determined that the filing of the complaint warranted a termination of the plaintiff’s employment, Bunn and the defendant councillors then discussed a course of action to execute the same. This included Bunn’s request on Feb. 27 for an immediate “emergency meeting to address the retaliatory complaint.”
But the following day, the statement of claim notes that Mayor Floyd Pinto denied Bunn’s request and scheduled a special meeting to consider appointing independent legal counsel to investigate the competing complaints. That meeting was then cancelled.
“In an attempt to terminate the plaintiff’s employment, councillors Hall-Chancey, Bays, Pita and Anderson collectively or individually took the following measures, each of which was contrary to policies and procedures of the township," states the claim.
Among those cited in the statement of claim is a request by Hall-Chancey to fire Dean after an alleged report of a “screaming” fight on the premises.
On April 1, “the defendant councillors directed a township lawyer lacking independence to investigate the harassment complaints of the plaintiff and Bunn,” the claim states.
Following a series of internal scuffles between the mayor and councillors, the saga took another twist later that month when Bays tells Dean, Robinson and other township employees that “the defendant councillors” had issued a press release, informing the public that they had been served a notice of libel by Pinto and accordingly, would no longer be attending most council meetings, the statement says.
Later that day, “anticipating an unbudgeted expense for the township, the plaintiff posed a question ‘in confidence’ to an experienced CAO regarding the wisdom of the township funding the defendant councillors’ legal defence to the libel claim.
“The plaintiff was advised that a municipality was under no obligation to fund any party and would be wise to avoid taking sides unless it were named as a defendant," notes the statement of claim.
Dean shared his query and the CAO’s response with Robinson, suggesting “he exercise caution and solicit the advice of another CAO and the township lawyers.”
The claim states that Dean waited 11 days for a response from Robinson, but after not receiving one reiterated his concerns about getting involved in the councillors’ lawsuit.
A day later, the claim says Robinson noted an agreement had been reached to provide legal representation to the defendant councillors and that "this matter was not to leave that room.”
The next day (April 26), the claim states, council conducted an in-camera meeting to discuss Dean’s employment status with the decision made to fire him.
On April 27, the claim says Dean was summoned to a meeting with Robinson.
“With Dianne Brown in attendance, Robinson handed the plaintiff a letter and stated that he was fired immediately for 'leaking' a confidential discussion," notes the statement of claim.
“The plaintiff denied the allegation and asked for an explanation. Rather than responding to same, Robinson stated that he did not have the ‘heart’ to fire the plaintiff for cause, advised him to consult a lawyer and told him to pack his personal possessions and leave the premises.”
The plaintiff was stunned by this turn of events and left the building without his car keys, phone charger and coat, the claim outlines.
“In the days that followed, already suffering from work-related health problems, the plaintiff’s health further deteriorated as a result of the termination. The plaintiff spiralled into severe depression, developed gum disease and was barely able to function. He rarely got off his couch or bed," notes the statement of claim.
Dean eventually received a formal termination letter written by Robinson in his “purported role” as acting CAO.
According to the claim, the letter states that “for the serious reasons discussed with you, including breach of confidentiality regarding a confidential litigation matter which occurred despite my express direction to you to the contrary. … a harassment investigation is ongoing and the township’s decision to terminate is not based in any way to such investigation as it is still ongoing and no findings have been made yet.”
According to the claim, Dean declined to sign an acceptance letter to his termination, which would have given him a severance package.
In the claim, "the plaintiff also pleads that at all material times, Robinson acted under false pretenses, having no authority to terminate the plaintiff’s employment, since he was not the plaintiff’s supervisor but rather was junior in seniority and pay scale.
"Indeed, on the date of termination, council had not passed a bylaw to promote Robinson from chief building officer to acting CAO," notes the statement of claim.
In seeking damages, the claim states that the conduct of Bunn, the defendant councillors, Robinson and the township was unfair and in bad faith, including being untruthful, misleading and unduly insensitive as regards their responses to both the complaint and the plaintiff’s protection of the financial integrity of the township, together with their prolonged efforts to punish the plaintiff for same.
"In particular, the said defendants utterly failed to uphold the principles and guidelines set out in the Whistle Blower Policy, Harassment Policy and Code of Conduct, particularly concerning protection from retaliation, adverse affects and reprisal," the statement of claim notes.
"The plaintiff pleads that Bunn and the township engaged in outrageous or flagrant conduct calculated to cause harm, which resulted in a visible and provable illness to the plaintiff."
