Lakis Parastatidis v. Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited, 2009 HRTO 2107

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lakis Parastatidis

Applicant

-and-

Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: December 4, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2107

Indexed as: Parastatidis v. Ford Motor

1These Applications were filed June 26, 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 removal of three personal respondents named in the human rights complaint underlying the Applications.

2The Tribunal has generally considered the following factors as set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at paras 4-5 in deciding whether to remove personal respondents from a proceeding:

1. Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?

2. Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who [is] sought to be removed?

3. Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?

4. Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?

5. Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?

In considering whether any compelling reason exists to continue the proceeding against a personal respondent, one way of approaching this question is to ask whether it is necessary to involve this person as a party in order to have a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the complaint.

3The applicant did not file a response to the Request for Order.

4There is no question that the named personal respondents were acting in the course of their employment and there is no issue as the corporate respondent’s ability to provide a remedy. In these circumstances, I do not see a compelling reason to continue this Application against the personal respondents and they are removed from the style of cause.

5I am not seized of these matters.