Saxon v. Amherstburg Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 323

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

James Saxon

Applicant

-and-

Amherstburg Police Services Board, Raymond Marentette and Bartolomeo Dipasquale

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: March 20, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 323 Indexed as: Saxon v. Amherstburg Police Services Board

1This is an Application received September 11, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2This Interim Decision addresses a disputed request to amend the Application and to add a party. The Case Resolution Conference is scheduled for July 15 and 16, 2009.

3The applicant seeks to add Timothy Berthiaume, an employee of the corporate respondent and direct supervisor of the applicant at the time of the events in issue. The applicant asserts that he attempted to have Mr. Berthiaume added as a party when the complaint was before the Human Rights Commission ("Commission") but due to "a bureaucratic oversight" this was not done.

4The applicant asserts Mr. Berthiaume was personally involved in the alleged discrimination and harassment.

5The transitional provisions of the Code are intended to deal with the subject matter of complaints filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008. In my view, the legislative intention as set out in the transition provisions is that section 53(3) applications should be dealt with in a highly expeditious manner. To that end, the Tribunal developed Rules to foster a fair, just and highly expeditious process. In particular Rule 6.3 states:

Applications made in accordance with these Rules must be based on the subject matter of the complaint or amended complaint filed at the Commission and the Tribunal will not entertain preliminary requests to add grounds, expand the subject matter of the complaint or add parties to the Application.

6In my view, it would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding to permit the applicant to add Mr. Berthiaume as a respondent at this stage of the proceeding and almost four years after the conduct allegedly occurred. I note further that if Mr. Berthiaume was acting in the course of his employment, his actions bind the corporate respondent in any event. In all these circumstances, the applicant's request to add a personal respondent is denied.