Cote v. Bruce Edmeades, 2009 HRTO 1142

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dennis Cote Applicant

-and-

Bruce Edmeades Co., Jay Jackson, Janet Lehman, Sarah Brestovacki and Steve Little Respondents

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: July 27, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1142 Indexed as: Cote v. Bruce Edmeades

1This is an Application filed January 30, 2009 under section s. 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request for Order during Proceeding filed by the applicant to consolidate his complaints and to add parties.

3The applicant made reference to a second complaint that was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and appeared to be seeking an order joining the two complaints into one proceeding. A review of the Commission file (which was provided to the Tribunal at the applicant’s request) indicates that the applicant filed a second complaint with respect to the same allegations and therefore the second complaint was closed. There is only one Application before the Tribunal filed by the applicant and therefore the request to consolidate cannot be granted.

4The applicant sought to add the following respondents to this Application: Warren Sarafinchman, Director of Operations, Glen Cleasby, Operations Manager and Tim Vander Meulen, Transportation Supervisor. The applicant alleges that he cannot understand why these persons were not listed as personal respondents in his original complaint, as they are mentioned in the body of the complaint. However, I find that except for a reference to “Plant Manager Warren”, none of the above persons are mentioned in the body of his original complaint. In addition, the Commission did amend his complaint to add Stephen Little, but there is no record in the Commission file of any request to add the above persons.

5The transitional provisions of the Code are intended to deal with the subject matter of complaints filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008. The legislative intention as set out in the transition provisions is that section 53(5) applications should be dealt with in a fair just and expeditious manner.

6In my view, it would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding to permit the applicant to add the requested persons at this stage of the proceeding, approximately two years after the events giving rise to the Application arose. In any event, I note that if the disputed persons were acting in the course of his employment at the time, their actions bind the corporate respondent. The applicant’s request to add Warren Sarafinchman, Glen Cleasby, and Tim Vander Meulen as parties to this Application is denied.