Izzard v. Woodbine Entertainment Group, 2009 HRTO 229

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Tracy Izzard Applicant

-and-

Woodbine Entertainment Group Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

James Andrews Applicant

-and-

Woodbine Entertainment Group Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: March 3, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 229 Indexed as: Izzard v. Woodbine Entertainment Group

1The applicant, Ms. Izzard, filed an Application (2008-00751-I) under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H19 as amended (the “Code”), on November 17, 2008, which alleges that the respondent discriminated against her with respect to services because of her race and her association with her partner, James Andrews. Mr. Andrews filed a separate Application (2008-00750-I) under s. 34 of the Code arising out of the same facts. Ms. Izzard and Mr. Andrews allege that they were discriminated against when they attended a dinner at the Woodbine Racetrack.

2This Interim Decision addresses the Requests for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”), filed by both Ms. Izzard and Mr. Andrews, to have their Applications heard together. The applicants also request that the respondent provide the names of the employee who acted as their waitress and the manager on duty the night of the alleged incident. Once those employees have been identified, Ms. Izzard and Mr. Andrews request that they be added as personal respondents to their Applications.

3The respondent filed a Response to the Request consenting to the Applications being heard together. The respondent also agreed to provide the full name of the manager on duty and the waitress serving the applicants during the alleged incident. However, the respondent takes the position that neither of those employees should be added as a personal respondent

4Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice gives the Tribunal the discretion to hear applications together in order to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of these applications. The parties consent to the Request and Applications arise out of the same facts. The Applications shall therefore be heard together.

5With respect to the request to add two personal respondents to the Applications, the respondent objects on the basis that the individual employees were acting within the scope of their responsibilities. The respondent also takes the position that the applicants failed to file Applications against those individuals within one year of the incident which is alleged to have occurred on November 17, 2007.

6The Applications were filed on November 17, 2008, exactly one year after the alleged incident occurred. Both the Request for the names of the two employees and the Request to add them as respondents were filed after the initial Applications and are dated December 2, 2008.

7The proposed respondents will be affected by any order of the Tribunal to add them as respondents. They are therefore entitled to notice of these Applications and an opportunity to file submissions in relation to the Requests of the applicants.

8Accordingly, the Applications will be heard together. Within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent will provide the applicants and the Tribunal with contact information for the proposed respondents, Mr. Agar and Ms. Henry. The applicants will provide notice to Mr. Agar and Ms. Henry of the Request to add them as respondents in accordance with the Rules. The applicants will also provide Mr. Agar and Ms. Henry with a copy of the Applications and of this Interim Decision.

9I am not seized of this matter.