Cassista v. Suncor Energy Products, 2009 HRTO 1762

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shane Cassista

Applicant

-and-

Suncor Energy Products Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: October 26, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1762

Indexed as: Cassista v. Suncor Energy Products

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on April 8, 2009, alleging discrimination in the context of employment on the basis of disability. The Application names Charlene Stokes as the only respondent.

2On August 5, 2009, a Response to the allegations contained in the Application was filed by counsel for Charlene Stokes and Suncor Energy Products Inc. (“Suncor”). The Response also asks that Charlene Stokes be removed as an individual respondent and that she be replaced by Suncor.

3On September 2, 2009, counsel for Charlene Stokes and Suncor also filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (“Request”) reiterating the request that Charlene Stokes be removed and replaced by Suncor.

4On September 15, 2009, the applicant filed a Response to the Request. In the Response, under the heading “What are you Responding to?”, the applicant checked boxes corresponding to “Request that applications be consolidated or heard together” and “Request to re-activate deferred Application”. Under the heading “What are the reasons for your Response, including any facts relied on and representations in support of your Response?”, the applicant wrote: “I believe that some supporting documents were withheld.”

5Also on September 15, 2009, the applicant filed a lengthy Reply in which he addresses the substantive issues raised in the Response. The Reply does not, however, address the request to replace Charlene Stokes with Suncor.

REQUEST TO REPLACE THE PERSONAL RESPONDENT WITH THE CORPORATE RESPONDENT, SUNCOR

6The Application relates to the termination of the applicant’s employment. The applicant alleges that any performance or attendance problems he had were caused by the stress he was experiencing because of his recent marriage break-up. He states that the termination of his employment was unfair in light of the stress, anxiety and depression he was experiencing at the time.

7The applicant identifies Charlene Stokes as the person who informed him that his employment had been terminated. He seems also to suggest that Stokes made or was involved in making the decision to terminate his employment.

8Charlene Stokes is the Human Resources Manager for Suncor’s Sarnia refinery. Suncor states that, in relation to the Application, none of her actions or alleged actions were in her personal capacity and the decision to terminate the applicant’s employment was made by Suncor, the company. Suncor notes that the only relief claimed (reinstatement of employment with Suncor) is not and could not be sought against Charlene Stokes in her personal capacity.

9In the circumstances, I am satisfied that Suncor is the proper respondent and I find that it is appropriate to remove Charlene Stokes as the respondent and replace her with Suncor Energy Products Inc. The style of cause has been amended accordingly.

10Although Suncor is now the respondent, this does not change the nature of the Application. It remains open to the applicant to allege that the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment (including behaviour of Suncor’s employees such as Charlene Stokes) constituted a breach of the Code.

CONSOLIDATION AND REACTIVATION

11The applicant made reference to a request to consolidate and to reactivate an application in his Response to the Request. As this Application is active and has not been deferred, it is unclear what application the applicant wishes to reactivate. It is also unclear whether another application exists which could be consolidated with the present Application.

12Based on the material filed with the Tribunal, I am unable to determine what orders the applicant is seeking. If the applicant wants the Tribunal to address issues before the hearing of this matter, he may file a Request for an Order during Proceedings (Form 19). He should clearly explain the nature of the order he is seeking as well as the basis for the request.

13I am not seized of this matter.