Angry in the Great White North

When we left things, the case of the alleged mistreatment of Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson by Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla had reached a bit of an impasse.

On the one hand, Ruby Dhalla stood accused of being the de facto employer of these women, and having forced them to work long hours without proper compensation, while holding on to their passports as a means of enforcing her edicts.

On the other hand, Ruby Dhalla (through her lawyer) has alleged that she (Dhalla) was not the employer, that receipts proved that other people did the extra work that the caregivers alleged they were forced to do, that the caregivers were part of a conspiracy in which (unnamed) powerful plotters would reward them with landed status, and that in the case of Magdalene Gordo, allegations were made against another (unnamed) employer, suggesting a pattern, and that a pattern detracted from her credibility.

There is a press statement from Charles Sinclair, the lawyer for Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson, addressing these issues:

Press Statement on behalf of Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson

May 15, 2009

Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson have received numerous requests for interviews since they testified before the Parliamentary Committee on Tuesday, May 12th.  As you can no doubt imagine, the past weeks' events have been overwhelming for both Richelyn and Magdalene.  They do not wish to do any interviews or make any further comments with respect to this matter.  However, they have asked me to respond to a number of the allegations raised against them by, among others, Ms. Dhalla and her lawyer.

First, it has been suggested that Ms. Gordo and Ms. Tongson were somehow parties to a conspiracy to attack and discredit Ms. Dhalla.  This suggestion is preposterous.  Richelyn and Magdalene did not ask for this attention.  They were asked to attend before the Parliamentary Committee to tell their story and they did.  It took a tremendous amount of courage for them to have come forward and then to have testified as they did.  There is no credible evidence, or any evidence whatsoever, other than idle speculation, that either Richelyn or Magdalene were put up to making these allegations by any political party, let alone the present Government.

Second, it has been suggested by some that perhaps Ms. Gordo and Ms. Tongson were motivated to fabricate these allegations against Ms. Dhalla and her family in order to gain landed immigrant status.  To their knowledge, neither Richelyn nor Magdalene stood to gain anything from coming forward with these allegations.  Indeed, they have suffered a great deal of stress and unrest as a result of their actions.  The suggestion that they did so in the vain hope of obtaining a shortcut to landed immigrant status is ridiculous.

Third, it was most recently alleged by Ms. Dhalla's lawyer that Ms. Gordo previously made similar allegations of mistreatment with respect to a former employer.  Presumably, this allegation is being advanced to make the point that somehow Ms. Gordo is less credible because she had alleged mistreatment previously.  It is shocking that this allegation has been made at all without the identity of the accuser being known.  Regardless, Ms. Gordo confirms that she did work for the family in question for 1 month following which she complained that she had been forced to work on Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year's day but had not been adequately remunerated.

Recall that the Parliamentary Committee tabled its report to Parliament approximately one week ago in which it found that caregivers who come to Canada pursuant to HRSDC's Live-in Caregiver Programme are disadvantaged and dependent on their employment for more than their livelihood.  The Committee reached this conclusion after hearing the multitude of stories of abuse and exploitation of nannies in this country.  Given the findings of the Committee, it is hardly far-fetched to believe that a caregiver could have been mistreated by more than one employer.

Last, as I watched Ms. Dhalla's lawyer holding up photos of his client's basement and heard descriptions of their mahogany furniture and flat screen TV, it occurred to me that they are obfuscating.  They seem to be saying "Look at this nice basement apartment, the mahogany furniture and flat screen TV - how bad could it have been?".  Leaving aside that, to my knowledge, neither Ms. Gordo nor Ms. Tongson have ever complained about the adequacy of their living quarters, this misses the point.   The greatest concern for our clients, and indeed any caregiver in their situation, was whether their employment contract was being properly processed such that Magdalene and Richelyn were working towards their quota (24 months in 36 months).

Our clients have, in effect, alleged that the Dhalla family misused the Live-in Caregiver Programme to their alleged detriment.  Stated simply, Ms. Gordo and Ms. Tongson have alleged that the Dhallas were wasting their time, which is for caregivers under the Live-in Caregiver Programme, a precious commodity.

Ms. Tongson and Ms. Gordo will not be making any further statements or comments at this time.  While they are happy to have had the opportunity to tell their story and for the extra attention it has brought to the plight of caregivers in this country, they wish to return to their regular lives and to concentrate on the families for whom they presently work.

I hope this answers any questions you may have.

Charles Sinclair

Charles Sinclair seems to be saying that the entire Dhalla family is in the dock on this one.  That could be significant, since Ruby Dhalla's defence is, in part, to say that any questions ought to be addressed to her brother Neil Dhalla or mother Tavinder Dhalla.  Howard Levitt represents Ruby Dhalla, not Neil or Tavinder, or at least that is what we've been told.  If Neil or Tavinder were to get their own counsel, Charles Sinclair could continue to target all three, and watch the finger pointing on the other side continue, perhaps hoping that one of the Dhallas rolls on the others.

Charles Sinclair is focusing the allegations on the question of whether the live-in caregiver program was being misused.  Whether or not the caregivers were made to clean the chiropractic clinic or shovel snow is not mentioned, and Sinclair seems to implicitly dismiss these allegations are secondary issues and a distraction (a good move, I think).  Instead, he aims at the weakest point in the Dhalla family defence.  Certainly the paperwork we've seen shows Neil Dhalla completing the application for Tongson to be a live-in caregiver on April 14, 2008.  The resulting Labour Market Opinion came on May 30.  But Tongson had been working since February 22.

At best, the Dhallas are guilty of sloppy paperwork.  At worst, they could be accused of hiring Tongson illegally.  No paperwork, timely or otherwise, that permitted the hiring of Gordo as a live-in caregiver has been offered up by the Dhallas.

Did the Dhallas (including Ruby Dhalla) tell Tongson and Gordo that they were accruing work credit towards achieving landed immigrant status when in fact neither had been processed as live-in caregivers?  Charles Sinclair is building his case around the allegation that the Dhallas were indeed stringing Tongson and Gordo along.  That could be devastating, especially in the light of Agatha Mason's testimony that she had explained all this to Ruby Dhalla in the phone call Mason made to Ruby Dhalla in late May.

It will be interesting to see if the Dhallas tries to defend against this angle of attack, or if Ruby Dhalla (through her lawyer) continues to wave snow removal receipts as a way of keeping the media from spending too much time on the question of whether the Dhallas had ignored the rules when hiring Tongson and Gordo.