Former London Transit commissioner sues city hall, citing wrongful dismissal

A former member of the London Transit Commission (LTC) is suing city hall for wrongful dismissal two months after politicians decided to take over the board that oversees the public transit system.

Sheryl Rooth has sat on the LTC since 2014, and is accusing the City of London of breaching its obligation as her de-facto employer as the entity that oversees the transit board.

"Ms. Rooth was in a contractual relationship with the City of London. She is also a paid 'volunteer' with the City of London...As Such, Ms. Rooth was entitled to be treated in good faith, receive due process, and not be subjecto a bad faith termination."

Rooth's lawyer, Susan Toth, declined to comment. The City of London said it filed a statement of defence on Thursday and also declined to comment.

The case raises questions about who is considered an employee and the obligations that city politicians have when considering dissolving or taking over public boards.

The LTC "maximized [Rooth's] humiliation and harm" and provided no notice that her position was in jeopardy, the lawsuit states. "She had to watch members of City Council publicly debate her position on the LTC without any in-depth knowledge of the issues facing the LTC."

Rooth is seeking $65,000 in damages for bad-faith dismissal and breach of contract, plus $12,000 for the stipend she would have gotten for the remainder of her two-year term.

Members of the LTC are hired for four-year terms that correspond with city council terms.

The city's statement of defence counters Rooth's claims and asks that the lawsuit be dismissed.

"As a local board member, [Rooth] served at the pleasure of Council. [She] did not have any procedural rights in relation to her role as a local board member," city lawyers wrote in their statement.

"As the legislative body of the City, Council is required to make decisions about various public matters. [Rooth's] disagreement with any such decision is a political issue for which the members of Council are accountable through the municipal election process."

When they dissolved the LTC, city councillors cited leadership concerns and an inability to follow council direction, including a suggestion by Ward 2 Coun. Shawn Lewis to implement a free bus pass pilot project for students at Clarke Road Secondary School, Rooth's lawsuit states.

"Despite [the LTC] being an independent entity, Ms. Rooth began, over the previous two years, to feel a growing pressure from the City of London to follow its directives rather than to act independently. This was a significant shift," the lawsuit states.

"In particular, Ms. Rooth noticed that [Lewis] began making critical comments (sometimes inaccurate) about the LTC in public and to constituents and expressing a desire to have the City of London control the LTC, rather than have an independent agency made up of citizens with expertise in transit."

Lewis declined to comment for this article, saying the lawsuit was with the city's lawyer.

The city also denies that it disbanded the transit commission. Instead, it says, city counillors altered the governance structure of the LTC to include only city councillors, the statement of defence states.

Prior to the board being dissolved, two city councillors were members.

Rooth alleges that instead of investigating potential issues or appointing city councillors to three vacant seats, politicians acted "reacted recklessly, impetuously and without any due diligence," the lawsuit states, by saying the LTC was in "crisis" and disbanding the board.

City councillors didn't reach out to Rooth and there have never been any complains against her, Rooth's lawsuit adds.

"City council publicly rejected the opportunity to keep Ms. Rooth on the LTC .... [She] has yet to receive a formal letter from the City of London terminating her appointment ... it appears City Council believed it could make these decisions with impunity. It cannot."

Rooth's lawyer sites a recent lawsuit against Scouts Canada by an 86-year-old man whose application to continue volunteering for the group was denied, despite working in that capacity since 1958. The judge ruled that Scouts Canada breached its internal policies and failed to provide adequate reasons or due process for denying his renewal.

"The decision in Scouts Canada confirms that courts may step in and supervise the relationship between a volunteer and an organization where there is evidence that both sides intended to create a binding legal relationship," said Sean Grassie, one of the lawyers who represented the volunteer.

"In my view, the Scouts Canada case doesn't mean that employees and volunteers have identical legal status, or that a volunteer can always sue for alleged misconduct the organization they work for," Grassie told CBC News.

"But it does confirm that, in certain circumstances, volunteers will have enforceable legal rights that are similar to those enjoyed by employees, provided the volunteer can establish a sufficiently formal legal relationship with the organization."