Lee Thompson v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2009 HRTO 1078

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Lee Thompson Applicant

-and-

Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Bonnie McPhail, Scott Tranton, and Yolanda Watson Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: July 21, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1078 Indexed as: Thompson v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario

1In this Application made under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (“the Code”), the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, disability, family status as well as reprisal. This Interim Decision will address the applicant’s Request for Order during Proceedings (“the Request”) seeking the addition of Bob Peter, C.E.O. of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (“LCBO”) and Bob Clevely, Regional Manager, as respondents to the Application.

2The Application contains a detailed narrative which generally describes the applicant's efforts over the last seven years to be transferred to the Brampton area. The applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against him in various ways by denying his request for transfer.

3In support of his Request, the applicant states that he inadvertently left out Mr. Peter and Mr. Clevely when he prepared his Application. No other reason is given.

4The respondents have filed a Response to the Request which states that there is nothing in the Application which alleges that either Mr. Peter or Mr. Clevely have engaged in discrimination against the applicant. The respondents point out that Mr. Peter is not even mentioned in the Application. With respect to Mr. Clevely, the respondents submit that there is no nexus between the statements in the Application that mention Mr. Clevely and any allegation of discrimination under the Code. Mr. Peter and Mr. Clevely did not file Responses to the Request.

5The Tribunal's jurisprudence has considered the two-part test that developed in Payne v. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., 2001 CanLII 26231 (ON H.R.T.), and was refined in Greenhorn v. 621509 Ontario Inc. (Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep), 2006 HRTO 22. That test interpreted and applied sections 39(2) and (3) of the old Code and requires the Tribunal to consider:

1. whether there are facts alleged in the Complaint which, if proven, and absent some defence by the respondent, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the complainant’s rights; and

2. whether the proposed respondent would suffer real and substantial prejudice that could not be alleviated or cured by a Tribunal order if it were made a party to the proceeding.

6In this case, there are no allegations contained in the Application at all with respect to Mr. Peter. With respect to Mr. Clevely, the portions of the Application which mention him cannot serve as a basis for a finding of discrimination against the applicant. I find that the first part of the test is not satisfied in this case. Furthermore, the reasons advanced by the applicant in support of the Request are insubstantial and unconvincing.

7For these reasons, the Request is dismissed.

8The respondents indicated in their Response to the Request that they intend to ask that the personal respondents be removed. If the respondents wish to pursue this, a Request for Order during Proceedings should be filed in support of such a request.