Visconti v. Great-West Life Assurance Company, 2009 HRTO 1442

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jacqueline Visconti

Applicant

-and-

Great-West Life Assurance Company, London Life Insurance Company and Freedom 55 Financial

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: September 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1442

Indexed as: Visconti v. Great-West Life Assurance Company

1This is an Application filed March 25, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment and reprisal on the basis of sex. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to add a party and amend the Application.

2This Application relates to events related to the applicant’s employment with the corporate respondents. The applicant initially filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) in 2005. The applicant also filed an Application under section 34 of the new Code on July 8, 2008 alleging reprisal for filing the first complaint. In its Decision 2008 HRTO 270 the Tribunal ruled that the section 34 Application and the original complaint were so inter-related that they should be dealt with together as a transitional Application and that the section 34 Application was barred under section 53(8). In particular the Tribunal stated:

It is open to the applicant to amend her complaint at the Commission or to bring the complaint to the Tribunal under section 53(3) of the Code before December 31, 2008. While the Tribunal’s approach to s. 53(3) applications is that they be matters which are ready for resolution, it nonetheless retains the discretion to amend complaints where it is appropriate and consistent with the highly expeditious nature of the s. 53(3) process. The respondents are on notice of these additional allegations and indeed accept that they are connected to the ongoing complaint.

3I have reviewed the requested amendments. In light of the approach taken by the Tribunal in its earlier Decision, and the respondents’ agreement, I find that all the allegations raised by the applicant are properly before the Tribunal in this transitional Application and a formal amendment of the Application is not required.

4For further clarification, I understand that the following allegations are encompassed in the present Application: the events set out in the complaint dated July 29, 2005; the events set out in the section 34 Application dated July 4, 2008 and the events set out in the applicant’s request to amend submissions dated August 16, 2009.

REQUEST TO ADD GREAT-WEST LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

5The Tribunal has held that where alleged facts, if proven, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code and the proposed respondent would not suffer real and substantial prejudice if added as a party to the proceeding, the proposed respondent may be added as a party to the proceeding, at the Tribunal’s discretion: Greenhorn v. 621509 Ontario Inc. (Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep), 2006 HRTO 22. While Greenhorn was decided under the old Code, the principles remain applicable in this case.

6The applicable provision of the new Code relating to parties is section 36:

The parties to an application under section 34 or 35 are the following:

1. In the case of an application under subsection 34 (1), the person who made the application.

2. In the case of an application under subsection 34 (5), the person on behalf of whom the application is made.

3. In the case of an application under section 35, the Commission.

4. Any person against whom an order is sought in the application.

5. Any other person or the Commission, if they are added as a party by the Tribunal.

7Under s. 36(5), the Tribunal continues to have a broad discretion to add parties to an application.

8Great-West Life Assurance Company (“GWL”) is the parent corporation of London Life and Freedom 55, the corporations with whom the applicant was directly employed. The applicant seeks to add GWL on the basis that as the parent company, they are ultimately responsible for the actions of the named respondents. Also, the applicant notes that the human rights policy used by the respondents states that the Senior Vice-President, Corporate Resources for GWL will report the outcome of a human rights investigation to the person filing the complaint and will determine and implement the appropriate resolution of the complaint.

9Part of the applicant’s claim relates to an alleged failure to properly address her internal human rights complaint and therefore, appears to implicate the actions of GWL. Therefore I am satisfied that the Application sets out facts against GWL which could give rise to a finding that they have breached the applicant’s rights.

10Counsel for London Life/Freedom 55 is also counsel for GWL and did not assert any prejudice from the addition of them as a party.

11I am satisfied that this is an appropriate situation to exercise my discretion to add GWL as a respondent to these proceedings.