Bell denies discrimination claims by former CP24 personality, asks commission to dismiss complaint | CBC News

Bell Media is denying allegations made by former CP24 weather personality Patricia Jaggernauth in a human rights complaint last fall and calling on the Canadian Human Rights Commission to dismiss her claim.

The denial is the first time the media outlet has directly responded to the complaint, in which Jaggernauth alleged “a systemic pattern” of racism, sexism and discrimination, saying she was “treated as a token and a commodity” during her 11 years with the company.

Until now, Jaggernauth says she’s heard nothing from Bell acknowledging her complaint. 

In a response form sent to the commission dated March 24, Bell says it “vigorously denies any and all discrimination allegations” made by Jaggernauth, and that it has always acted according to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It also says the commission should set aside Jaggernauth’s claim, arguing she should have gone through her union’s complaint and grievance processes first. Jaggernauth, the company says, was a unionized employee since at least 2018 and was protected under a collective agreement between Bell and Unifor.

WATCH | Patricia Jaggernauth on working for years without a contract at Bell: 

‘How come I was never enough?’

Journalist Patricia Jaggernauth alleges she was repeatedly passed up for job opportunities at CP24, leaving her struggling with her mental health.

As part of her complaint, Jaggernauth, who had been a weather specialist, remote reporter and co-host with the Bell-owned news channel, alleged she was repeatedly passed over for promotions at Bell and earned less than a living wage.

Speaking exclusively to CBC Toronto last October, she said she watched as white colleagues, often newer ones, made it up the corporate ladder while she was never offered a contract.

Response shows ‘no accountability,’ says lawyer

But Bell says despite being unionized, Jaggernauth never went through her union to file a formal complaint or grievance about her claims of constructive dismissal or discrimination. The company also said it would waive any time limits associated with the grievance process to allow for Jaggernauth to address her claims that way. 

If the commission rejects Bell’s argument that the claim should be tossed, the company says it reserves the right to further respond in detail to each of the 29 allegations contained in her complaint. 

Jaggernauth’s lawyer, Kathryn Marshall, says Bell’s response shows “no accountability.”

“I thought it was absurd,” she told CBC News. “They issued a blanket denial of any wrongdoing, any discrimination, any misconduct and they’re completely passing the buck off to the union.”

According to Jaggernauth and her lawyer, going through the union’s grievance process simply wasn’t an option.

“I didn’t feel I had that option or the trust,” Jaggernauth said. “I just feel like a grievance was just another slow process where my voice once again would never be heard and if heard, how long would that take? I needed action and I needed it now.”

Besides, she says, although specific people inside it knew her situation in detail, the union never took any action. Some, she says, even advised her to go the route of the human rights complaint.

Marshall says the commission can choose to stay a proceeding if they determine there is another viable route that the applicant can pursue. But the grievance route isn’t one of them, she says.

“There are so many good reasons why people don’t file grievances with their union,” Marshall said. “It’s a completely disempowering process, you don’t own your grievance. You’re not in control … and it can go years and years.”

Another factor, she says: Even if resolved, the entire process takes place behind closed doors.

“The union grievance process is not a viable option for Patricia. The union knew what was going on, they’re frankly part of the problem.”

Unifor did not respond to CBC News’s requests for comment.

‘If you don’t hear me … you don’t hear us’

In the months since filing her complaint, Jaggernauth says she’s been overwhelmed by the outpouring of love she’s seen from the community, support on social media and people contacting her with their own experiences of workplace discrimination.

“At first it was very scary,” she said. “The heaviness of it, it’s your life’s work and you’re walking away from it and you’re going up against a giant.”

But she says she’s confident the commission will make the right decision.

“My story is the story of Ontarians and Canadians. If you don’t hear me, it means you don’t hear us.”

Their next move will be to write to the commission to argue against Bell’s application to have Jaggernauth’s case stayed, her lawyer says. A decision on that will likely take a few months, after which the commission would eventually set a hearing date should the case proceed.

Meanwhile, Marshall says she’s been contacted by other Bell employees with stories similar to Jaggernauth’s and that the case isn’t going away any time soon.

Should Jaggernauth’s complaint be set aside, Marshall says she will appeal. For now, her hope is to go before the commission and address Bell directly.

“Bell could use this as an opportunity to listen, right? Bell, let’s talk.”