HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lucy Bianca
Applicant
-and-
Maritime Travel and Karn Nichols
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson
Date: May 13, 2010
Citation: 2010 HRTO 1077
Indexed as: Bianca v. Maritime Travel
[1] This is an Application filed April 8, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment. The Tribunal has scheduled a hearing on July 8, 2010.
[2] The organizational respondent has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) that the individual respondent be removed as a party. In particular, the respondent requests an order “to indemnify Karn Nichols from any responsibility as alleged in the Application” as she is no longer employed with the organizational respondent. The applicant did not respond to the Request.
[3] The Tribunal has generally considered the following factors as set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, [2008 HRTO 31](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/31), at paras [4-5](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/31), in deciding whether to remove personal respondents from a proceeding:
Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?
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?
Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?
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?
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.
[4] It appears from the Application that the conduct of the individual respondent is a central issue and, if an infringement is found, it is possible that in the circumstances it would be appropriate to award a remedy against the individual respondent. In my view, it would be premature to remove the individual respondent at this point in time. The respondent’s Request is therefore dismissed.
[5] The Tribunal notes that the applicant has provided disclosure of documents to the Tribunal but it appears that disclosure has not been provided to the respondents. The applicant is reminded that Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice requires that, within 21 days of the Notice of Hearing, each party is to deliver to every other party a list of all arguably relevant documents in the party’s possession and a copy of each document contained on the list, excluding any documents for which privilege is claimed. In addition, not later than 45 days prior to the hearing, each party is to send to each other, as well as the Tribunal, copies of the documents they wish to rely on at the hearing.
[6] I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 13^th^ day of May, 2010.
“Signed By”
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair