John McIndless v. AAA Best Choice Taxi Inc., 2009 HRTO 1548

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John McIndless

Applicant

-and-

AAA Best Choice Taxi Inc., Sukhwant Singh Gill and Navra Gill

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: September 25, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1548

Indexed as: McIndless v. AAA Best Choice Taxi

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Order to add two respondents to his Application. The applicant filed his Application on March 20, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the respondent AAA Best Choice Taxi Inc. (“AAA”).

2The Application alleged that the applicant had been denied service by a taxi driver who drove for AAA on the basis that the applicant did not provide a blanket for his service dog to lie on in the vehicle. When he complained to the driver’s supervisor, he alleged this individual was rude to him.

3At the time of filing his Application, the applicant did not have the name of either the driver or supervisor. He had asked for the driver’s name prior to filing the Application and states he was advised the driver’s first name was “Raj.” He specified in his Application that he would be asking the Tribunal to order AAA to provide the names of both the driver and supervisor, and to order that they be named as respondents to his Application.

4Subsequent to that, his representative was advised by the Tribunal that the applicant must obtain these orders through a Request for Order. He did so. In an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 741, AAA was ordered to provide these names and contact information.

5AAA provided some but not all of the information ordered. It advised that the driver’s name was Sukhwant Singh Gill, but it provided an illegible copy of the supervisor’s driver’s license, on which it was impossible to read his name. The applicant filed a second Request on August 24, 2009, seeking to enforce the Tribunal’s order. The next day, AAA provided the missing information to the applicant, although not the Tribunal.

6Subsequently, the applicant filed his Request to add these individuals as respondents to the Application. AAA and the proposed respondents have not responded to this Request.

DECISION

7The test for adding respondents has been articulated at paragraph 12 in the recent decision, Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513.

When determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:

(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?

(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?

(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

8Parts 1 and 3 of the test are easily answered. The allegations, if proven, could support a finding against the two proposed individual respondents. They are the only two individuals from AAA who are alleged to have had any contact with the applicant on the evening in question. With respect to the issue of fairness, the applicant has made it clear from the outset that he intended to add these individuals upon receipt of their names. The respondents have not asserted any prejudice.

9There is only the question, then, of whether there is a compelling reason to include the two individuals in light of the fact that AAA is a respondent. In its Response to the Application, AAA states that it “is a broker and not an employer or contractor of taxi drivers and is not the owner of the cab involved in the Applicant’s claim.” It would appear that AAA is disputing its liability for the actions of the driver. AAA says nothing vis-à-vis its relationship with respect to the person identified as the “supervisor,” whom the applicant advises is named Navra Gill.

10The fact that AAA has not accepted liability for the two individuals and the issues raised in the Application could result in a finding of liability against one or the other proposed respondents are compelling reasons to add them as respondents to the Application. In addition, in the event that a finding of discrimination is made with respect to the two individuals, there may be remedies against them that only they can implement in their personal capacity.

11Accordingly, I order that Sukhwant Singh Gill and Navra Gill be added as respondents to this Application and the style of cause be amended to include their names.

12I am not seized of this matter.