Viewpoint: Ron Hicks (January 1st, 2010)

Hopefully, we will be able to start the court proceedings within a reasonable time frame.  I have also included at the bottom of this article the initial chronology of events that were originally published on my website Scoreboard Canada in 2002.  The events listed are the main reasons Margaret claims damages for AIG Life of Canada (BMO Insurance) causing Margaret's current mental health problems - major depression and continuing symptoms of a nervous breakdown.

7 years later, Margaret is still under the care of doctors for her major depression and lichen planus condition.  I am very concerned by the adversarial form of justice used in Ontario that case law is too huge a factor in determining judgment amounts.  If the CEO of a bank can earn over 6 million a year and as clerk Margaret earned only $30,000.00 a year does this make the CEO's life more valuable?

I published the story on my websites because in a phone conversation on July 28th, 2002 from the administrative company that were handling Margaret's claim for short-term disability benefits.  The rep stated "If AIG did not want Margaret to get her disability benefits she would not get them."  At the time we assumed Canada Life was the insurer. We did not know AIG Life of Canada were self-insured for short-term disability benefits. 

They used every trick in the book to try and stop Margaret from getting the benefits she was entitled to.  It took almost 8 months to get approval and the monies owed her.

Background Information:

In the spring of 2001 Margaret was diagnosed with the disease Lichen Planus.  Her supervisor was informed of her condition and, that Margaret was under the care of a dermatologist to reduce the symptoms and prevent damage to the organs in her body and her nervous system.

At the time (spring 2001) Margaret began working an extensive amount of extra hours.  Several months later, without warning Margaret was called to a meeting and told she wouldn't be authorized for overtime pay.  Yet, adequate help to perform her duties was not supplied.  Margaret took the stand that she would not work without being paid.  She continued to put in a solid effort to perform her duties but there was not enough time in a working day to do so.

Her supervisors continued to harass her to complete her work on time but offered no constructive solutions.  Margaret did work, through her breaks and some of her lunch hour time was devoted to her job.

Despite the constant pressure of her supervisors, Margaret never received any formal written or verbal communications from them, that her performance was not satisfactory.  However, Margaret has in her possession several memos, e-mails and letters praising her for her work and cooperation from fellow employees.  Including a document date June 7th, 2002.  In this document (e-mail sent by her supervisor is in praise of Margaret for her efforts over the past year.  Margaret is also awarded an extra half day off with pay for her efforts.

On Friday June 21st 2002, I picked Margaret up at the go train as usual when she returned from work.  She got in my van and started to cry.  She told me that Dolly (her supervisor) suggested she quit and not risk the consequences of being fired.  Dolly told Margaret that if she didn't stay on her own time and get her work done, that her next performance appraisal would be the worst in AIG company history.  Click here for e-mail dated  June 25th (not available) and that is all they would need to fire her.  She also told Margaret she would be lucky to get two weeks severance pay and no letter of reference.  Dolly also said Margaret would have to sign a letter agreeing to do the work on her own time and that other employees had signed similar letters.

(2) Monday June 24th, 2002 letter to Mr. Peter McCarthy (President) and Dolly Harrilal (Supervisor) AIG Life of Canada.

Margaret was upset the entire week-end I thought she was to have a nervous breakdown.  I couldn't talk to her about it.  I left it alone until Sunday night and I drafted a letter and she agreed to its contents and handed it in. (AofD #5)

(Note: On review of the Employment Standards Act website - It recommends that employees try to solve the problem.  All AIG had to do after Margaret gave them the letter was honour her rights granted by law.

(3) Tuesday June 25th, 2002 E-mail making changes to Margaret's appraisal. 

(4) Thursday June 27th, 2002 - Letter from Dolly Harrilal (AofD #7)

In this letter, items appear that are condemnable, malevolent and are a direct assault on Margaret's character, nature and her stature which she considers to be worthy of a high level of respect.

(5) Friday June 28th, 2002 - Letter to AIG - Demand for Compensation

Their letter of June 27th, 2002 caused me to become so angry, it was almost to a point I was considering violent ways to get even.  Instead I managed to control my anger and focus to find out why they would take this position against my wife.  I came to the conclusion they wanted her out because of her health condition and or she would not work without being paid.

On June 28th, 2002 Margaret gave AIG a letter (AofD #8) demanding compensation for violating her rights under the Employment Standards Act Ontario and Ontario Human Rights Code.

(6) July 5th 2002 Letter from AIG to Margaret - Threatening further disciplinary action including termination of Employment (AofD #9) 

Margaret was given the letter at about 11:40 am by Marjory C. Mackay (Human Resources Manager) at AIG.  Margaret went for lunch and phoned me from a phone booth.  She was very upset about the letter.  I told her to come home.  She went back to the mailroom picked up her personal belongings and told Dolly she was going home because she wasn't feeling very well.

We have a long way to go before this is settled.  Margaret's current health condition (July 2002) requires us to wait before we can take any legal action.

________________