Peter Smith v. Wal-Mart Canada Corporation, 2009 HRTO 991

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Peter Smith

Applicant

-and-

Wal-Mart Canada Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: July 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 991

Indexed as: Smith v. Wal-Mart Canada

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on January 6, 2009, which alleges that the respondent, Wal-Mart Canada Corp., and another individual subjected him to discrimination and reprisal and/or threat of reprisal with respect to employment. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings, which requests to add a respondent to his Application.

2In a previous Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 570, which addressed the applicant’s first Request for an Order During Proceedings, the Tribunal, at para. 3, ordered the respondent to provide the applicant and the Tribunal with the full name and last known address of any person fitting the description of “Yannick, the night support manager”. The respondent complied with the Order on May 8, 2009. The individual in question is named Yanik Leduc.

3The Tribunal also provided the following direction at para. 4:

The individual in question is not currently named as a respondent in the Application. If the applicant intends to make a Request to add him as a respondent to the Application, he shall file an additional Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) with the Tribunal, and deliver it to both the organization respondent (Wal-Mart Canada Corp.) and the proposed individual respondent. The applicant shall ensure that he includes the cover page (page 1) of the Request with his filing and delivery, as it appears that he did not do so when he filed and delivered his current Request.

4The applicant filed a second Request for an Order during Proceedings on June 2, 2009, which was delivered to the respondent and Mr. Leduc, and requests to add a respondent to his Application, but does not clearly specify who the proposed respondent is. Although it may be clear to the applicant, based on his previous filings and the previous Interim Decision, that he was proposing to add Mr. Leduc as an individual respondent, it may not have been clear to Mr. Leduc, as neither the previous filings nor the previous Interim Decision were delivered to him. The applicant also failed, despite my previous direction, to include the cover page (page 1) of the Request with his filing. Mr. Leduc has not filed a Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 11), but in the circumstances, it is not surprising that he has not done so.

5The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that the Rules will be liberally interpreted and applied by the Tribunal to facilitate an accessible procedure (Rule 1.1), and that the Tribunal may relieve against a failure to comply with the Rules as the Tribunal considers appropriate (Rule 5.1). In my view, it would not be expeditious to direct the applicant to re-file and re-deliver his Request for an Order. Instead, the Tribunal will send a copy of this Interim Decision, its previous Interim Decision, and page 1 of Form 10 to Mr. Leduc. The Tribunal also extends the deadline for Mr. Leduc to file his Response (Form 11) to July 21, 2009 with the understanding that the applicant is proposing to add him as an individual respondent to his Application.

6I am not seized of this matter.