Colvin Smith v. Astley Gilbert Ltd. Intelligent Imaging et al., 2009 HRTO 1348

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Colvin Smith

Applicant

-and-

Astley Gilbert Ltd. Intelligent Imaging, Adrian Royer, John Rozinger, Scott Baldwin, Warren Eade, Wayne Wilbur, John Eslamian, Charles Triolo, and Rino Dambrosio

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: August 28, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1348

Indexed as: Smith v. Astley Gilbert

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging that the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the basis of race and colour in respect of employment and engaged in reprisals against him contrary to the Code.

2This Interim Decision addresses a Request for an Order during Proceedings filed on behalf of the respondents, Petroff Partnership Architects (“Petroff”) and Gary Freeman (“Freeman”), to remove them as parties to this proceeding on the basis that the Application does not raise any claims under the Code against them. Specifically, Petroff and Freeman assert that they were never employers of the applicant, nor did they ever act as agents of the applicant’s employer. They assert that their only contact with the applicant was as a client of the respondent, Astley Gilbert Ltd.. Petroff and Freeman dispute that their dealings with the applicant were ever, in any way, “in respect of employment” within the meaning of the Code.

3All of the other respondents agree and consent to the Request to remove Petroff and Freeman as parties to the Application.

4The applicant indicated that he did not intend to respond to the Request, and no response was filed. In the Application, the applicant does not describe his relationship with the respondents Petroff and Freeman as being “in respect of employment”. Rather, the Application alleges that the applicant was employed by the respondent, Astley Gilbert Ltd.; that Petroff was a client of the respondent employer; and that Gary Freeman was an employee of Petroff.

5The Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which, among other things, prohibits discrimination and harassment with respect to employment on the basis of the grounds set out in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness which are not covered by the Code.

6Petroff and Freeman did not have dealings with the applicant “in respect of employment”; nor does the applicant allege that those respondents discriminated against him in respect of any other social area. Thus, as far as the applicant’s claim against Petroff and Freeman is concerned, the Application does not raise a matter covered by the Code. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with any of the applicant’s allegations against Petroff and Freeman.

7Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that in order to ensure a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may add or remove a party.

8The Tribunal grants the Request to remove the respondents Petroff and Freeman as parties to this proceeding. The style of cause is hereby amended accordingly.

9I am not seized of this matter.