Bill Dimitropoulos

The applicant sought to add a personal respondent to her human rights application alleging sexual harassment.

The proposed respondent had filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which typically stays proceedings.

However, because the applicant confirmed she would only seek non-monetary remedies against him (such as human rights training), she was no longer considered a creditor with a claim provable in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondent.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add a personal respondent and a franchisor as an additional corporate respondent to her human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and denied the request to add the franchisor, finding no basis for liability as it was a separate legal entity and not the applicant's employer.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondent, finding a factual dispute regarding whether he was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the alleged incidents.

The applicant sought to add three respondents to her human rights application alleging sexual harassment: Fast Mart, Obsidian Group Inc. (the franchisor), and Jason McKnight (the personal respondent).

The Tribunal denied the request to add Fast Mart, finding no allegations connecting it to the events.

The Tribunal granted the request to add Obsidian, noting that franchisor liability is a matter for the hearing and there was no prejudice.

The request to add Jason McKnight was deferred pending submissions on the effect of his recent bankruptcy proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.