Tina Gray v. Kingston General Hospital and Janice Harding, 2009 HRTO 709

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tina Gray

Applicant

-and-

Kingston General Hospital and Janice Harding

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: May 29, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 709

Indexed as: Gray v. Kingston General Hospital

1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code R.S.O 1990 c. H. 19 as amended (“the Code”) which alleges discrimination in goods, services and facilities.

2In the Application, the organizational respondent was shown as Kingston General Hospital (“the Hospital”) and the individual respondent was shown as “Janice”. As the applicant did not know Janice’s last name, that space was left blank.

3A Response was filed by counsel for both the Hospital and Janice Harding on or about October 28, 2008. Obviously, the Hospital had been able to determine the identity of “Janice” in relation to the allegations in the Application.

4A Reply was filed by the applicant on or about November 4, 2008 which made reference to Janice Harding but did not raise any issue about her status as respondent.

5On or about December 4, 2008, the applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking, among other things, the addition of Janice Harding as a party.

6On or about January 16, 2009, counsel for the respondents filed correspondence with the Registrar opposing the addition of Janice Harding as a party.

7In my view, there is no need for an Order adding a Janice Harding as a respondent as she is already a respondent. As noted above, the Hospital was able to file a Response on behalf of both itself and Janice Harding. Once the Response was received by the applicant, she was able to file a Reply and she did not raise any issue at that time with respect to Janice Harding's status as a respondent.

8As the other issues raised in the Request for Order appear to have resolved, there is no need for the Tribunal to determine the Request for Order.

9This decision is made without prejudice to the respondents’ ability to seek removal of Janice Harding as a respondent in the future.

10I am not seized of this matter.