Rajinder Singh Sandhu v. Royal Group Inc. and Galanda Building Systems Inc., 2009 HRTO 1765

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Rajinder Singh Sandhu

Applicant

-and-

Royal Group Inc. and Galanda Building Systems Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1765

Indexed as: Sandhu v. Royal Group

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Rajinder Singh Sandhu, Applicant ) Sukhjit Singh Sandhu, ) Representative

Royal Group Inc., Respondent ) Ranjan Agarwal, Counsel

Galanda Building Systems Inc. Respondent ) John Quaglietta, Counsel

1This Application was filed April 17, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking the addition of Galanda Building Systems Inc. (“Galanda”) as a respondent to the Application.

2The applicant was employed by Royal Group Inc. (“Royal”) until April 2007 and he alleges that his employment was terminated because of his disability.

3Royal manufactures building and construction supplies. In April 2007, Royal sold its building technologies business division to Galanda.

4At the time of the sale, Galanda offered certain Royal employees employment with Galanda. Royal asserted that as a term of the asset and share purchase agreement, Galanda negotiated the right to identify and select employees it intended to offer employment to. Galanda did not offer employment to the applicant. Royal alleges that it was required, as a term of the agreement, to dismiss the remaining employees, as there was no work for them to do. Accordingly, Royal terminated the applicant’s employment.

5Royal alleges that the termination of the applicant’s employment was a direct result of Galanda’s decision not to hire the applicant. Accordingly, Royal seeks to have Galanda added as a respondent to these proceedings.

6Galanda asserts that Royal had the option to retain or terminate with notice the employees Galanda did not offer employment to, and therefore the decision to terminate the applicant rested solely with Royal.

7The Tribunal has held that it may exercise its discretion to add a party when the alleged facts, if proven, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code, when the proposed respondent would not suffer real and substantial prejudice if added as a party to the proceeding, and when it would be fair, in all the circumstances to add the proposed respondents: Smyth v Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513.

8In this case, it appears that there are facts alleged that could lead to a finding that Galanda breached the applicant’s rights under the Code if a factor in its decision not to hire the applicant was based on the applicant’s disability.

9Galanda did not assert any prejudice that has arisen from the passage of time that would impair its ability to respond to the Application.

10I find that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion to add Galanda as a respondent to these proceedings.

11All parties have indicated a willingness to participate in mediation. The Tribunal will contact the parties to advise of the date of mediation.