Rowena Lindsay

I am posting this review with documentation in hand. My experience with Rowena Lindsay, who served in Strategic Recruitment & Employment Services at the City of Toronto, was one of the most professionally demoralizing I have encountered in my career. In August 2013, I began corresponding with Rowena after being rejected for two City of Toronto building examiner positions despite being a licensed architect with nine years of professional training and deep expertise in Building Code and Zoning; the exact subject matter of the jobs. I asked a simple and reasonable question: why was I not selected, and what were the qualifications of those who were? What followed was months of delay, deflection, and dismissal. Rowena was initially unresponsive, and I had to follow up repeatedly, sometimes waiting weeks between replies. When she finally did respond, her answers were dismissive. She told me I "did poorly" in the interview, offered no specifics, and then told me I was welcome to "apply to future job competitions" and that "hopefully your test results will be much better." This was condescending and deeply offensive to someone who holds a professional architect's licence, a credential that requires years of rigorous accredited training far exceeding anything a short interview could assess. Rather than engaging with the substance of my concerns, Rowena deflected to a policy argument: that the City does not provide specific feedback to external candidates. But when I pushed back and pointed out that the screening process admittedly gave no weight to education, professional qualifications, experience, or designation, facts confirmed by her own office, she had no meaningful answer. She also appeared to focus only on one of the two job competitions I had raised, overlooking Job #1807457 entirely until I pressed her on it. At some point, Rowena retired. The matter was handed to a manager without resolution. Years of documented correspondence, a clear pattern of procedural injustice, and the legitimate concerns of a qualified professional; all of it simply ended without accountability. Responsiveness: 1/5. Required multiple follow-up emails over weeks before receiving any reply. Professionalism: 1/5. Responses were condescending and dismissive of legitimate professional concerns. Transparency: 1/5. Refused to provide any meaningful information about the selection process or the chosen candidates. Effectiveness: 1/5. Did not address the core concerns raised and left the matter entirely unresolved. Integrity: 1/5. Defended a process that her own office later admitted ignored professional qualifications entirely.