Beata Philip v. Giant Tiger Stores Limited and Tora Ottawa Limited, 2009 HRTO 1227

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Beata Philip

Applicant

-and-

Giant Tiger Stores Limited and Tora Ottawa Limited

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: August 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1227

Indexed as: Philip v. Giant Tiger Stores

1This Interim Decision addresses two Requests for Order During Proceedings in an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the "Code").

2The Application alleges discrimination on the basis of sex and ethnic origin as a result of events that took place at the Giant Tiger store located at 98 George St., Ottawa. The application originally named "Giant Tiger, 98 George St., Ottawa," as the only organization respondent. The store in question is operated by Tora Ottawa Limited (Tora Ottawa) pursuant to a franchise agreement with Giant Tiger Stores Limited (Giant Tiger). The respondent Giant Tiger has provided a copy of the front and back pages of the franchise agreement together with its Request for Order.

3Giant Tiger seeks an order dismissing the Application as against it on the basis that the store operates under an independent corporation pursuant to the franchise agreement, and that Giant Tiger does not have any legal relationship with the employees of the store. I do not agree that this is a basis for the dismissal of the Application against Giant Tiger at this preliminary stage. It may be that the franchise agreement or Giant Tiger's exercise of its obligations under that agreement was a factor in any discrimination experienced by the applicant or that the franchisor is in some other way legally responsible for any discrimination experienced by the applicant. The question of the franchisor's liability should be determined following evidence and argument at the hearing. Accordingly, the Request is dismissed and the name of this respondent is corrected as set out in the style of cause.

4The applicant seeks an order adding Tora Ottawa as a respondent. She also seeks an order adding Tora Chabanel Limitée, a corporation with its head office in Montreal and a party to the franchise agreement, as a respondent. As Tora Ottawa operated the store in question, it is clearly a proper respondent and it is added as a party. The style of cause has been amended accordingly.

5However, there is no evidence that Tora Chabanel Limitée had any connection with the events in question or the management of the store, and therefore, I decline to add it as a respondent at this stage of the proceedings. If, as a result of disclosure or further information, it becomes clear that there is a basis for a Code remedy as against Tora Chabanel Limitée, the applicant may renew her request at that time. I note that there is an issue regarding proper service of Tora Chabanel Limitée. In view of the decision not to add it as a party, I need not address this issue.

6Tora Ottawa shall have seven days following the date of this Interim Decision to file its Response in Form 2 or to advise that it adopts the Response filed by Giant Tiger.

7I am not seized of this matter.