Julie Rayner v. Environics Research Group Ltd., Research House Inc. and Mau Lao, 2009 HRTO 1597

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Julie Rayner

Applicant

-and-

Environics Research Group Ltd., Research House Inc. and Mau Lao

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: October 2, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1597

Indexed as: Rayner v. Environics Research Group

1This is an Application filed May 15, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual harassment and reprisal or threat of reprisal in employment. The organizational respondents filed Responses to the Application and the applicant subsequently filed a Reply and a Request for Order seeking to add Mau Lao as an individual respondent in these proceedings. Neither the organizational respondents nor the proposed individual respondent filed a Response to the Request for Order.

2The Tribunal recently held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513, that 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?

The application of the first stage involves considering whether there are allegations made in the Application that could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code. At the second stage, the Tribunal applies the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, at para. 5, which focus principally on whether there is an organization that is part of the proceeding, which is able to take responsibility for the conduct, and whether the conduct of the individual respondent is a central issue in the proceedings. The factors from Persaud, supra, are applicable to both requests to add individual respondents and requests to remove them. At the third stage, the Tribunal may consider a variety of factors, including the effects on the hearing process of adding the proposed respondent, the reasons the proposed respondent was not named in the Application or Response, and prejudice to the other parties.

3In the present case, the Application includes allegations that the proposed respondent, who was the applicant's supervisor, subjected her to sexual harassment. The alleged facts, if proven, could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the applicant's rights under the Code. The organizational respondents submit that they are not responsible for any harassment on the part of the proposed respondent. They submit that he was acting without the knowledge, authority or approval of the respondents and they cannot reasonably be held responsible for discrimination or harassment contrary to the Code of which they were unaware and did not condone. The individual conduct of the proposed respondent is a central issue in the Application and there is no apparent prejudice to any party in adding the proposed respondent. In the circumstances, it appears that it would be appropriate to add the proposed individual respondent, Mau Lao, as a party to the proceedings. The applicant's Request for Order is granted and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

4The individual respondent shall be provided with a copy of the Application, the respondents' Responses and the applicant's Reply, along with a copy of this Interim Decision, and is directed to file a Response to the Application (in Form 2) not later than 35 days after a copy of the Application is sent.

5I am not seized.