HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mary Dopelhamer
Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Respondent
Interim decision
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Dopelhamer v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
1The Application in this matter was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”), on April 15, 2009. The Application alleges discrimination on the grounds of disability and age with respect to goods, services and facilities in the course of the applicant’s dealings with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. This Interim Decision deals with a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) to remove the personal respondents originally identified as parties to the Application. The Interim Decision also gives direction in regard to some materials filed by the applicant after she was sent the Request.
The Request to remove the personal respondents
2The applicant originally identified the following individuals as persons involved in the alleged discrimination: Enid Hervey, Carolyne Joly, Dan Paris, Kim Hill-Potvin, Sharon Barrier, Steven Dell and Darcy Bowman. Pursuant to a teleconference hearing and an Interim Decision in this matter, 2010 HRTO 765, I narrowed the scope of the Application, identifying the allegations that raise issues relevant to the Code as only those allegedly involving Mr. Paris and Ms. Barrier. Accordingly, there is no reason why Enid Hervey, Carolyne Joly, Kim Hill-Potvin, Steven Dell or Darcy Bowman should continue as named respondents, and these individuals will be removed as respondents.
3In respect of Ms. Barrier and Mr. Paris, the respondents rely on Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 in support of their Request. The respondents state that the personal respondents were at all times acting in the course of their job responsibilities.
4If the allegations in this Application concerning the actions of the personal respondents were proven in a hearing, there could be a finding that the Code has been breached. However, the corporate respondent has accepted responsibility for the actions of both of the personal respondents. There are no allegations of harassment in this Application, and, if a Code violation is found, the corporate respondent is liable for the personal respondents’ actions by virtue of section 46.3 of the Code, which states:
46.3(1) For the purposes of this Act, except subsection 2 (2), subsection 5 (2), section 7 and subsection 46.2 (1), any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent of a corporation, trade union, trade or occupational association, unincorporated association or employers’ organization shall be deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted to be done by the corporation, trade union, trade or occupational association, unincorporated association or employers’ organization.
5As noted in the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin, it is not necessary to name individuals as personal respondents where they were acting in the course of their regular duties.
6The Tribunal has expressed concern about the unnecessary naming of personal respondents in applications where there is an organizational or corporate respondent who is also liable for the alleged infringement of the applicant’s rights and is in a position to satisfy any remedies ordered in the case. See Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14; see also Haynes v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, 2008 HRTO 26 at para 20.
7As noted in the Request, the personal respondents can still be called upon to give evidence relevant to the allegations and issues raised in the Application. The applicant has not submitted any facts or legal issues that would indicate that the party status of the personal respondents should be maintained. On its facts, this case is clearly distinguishable from cases such as Brady v. Durham Rapid Taxi, 2010 HRTO 788.
8The personal respondents are removed as parties and the style of cause amended accordingly.
Directions regarding materials filed by the applicant
9On May 3, 2010, the applicant filed with the Tribunal and sent to the respondents a letter dated April 22 2010 addressed to Anne Marie Epton and citing a “Claim” number, as well as six pages of copies of other documents. This material may be relevant to the issues in this Application, and will remain part of the Tribunal’s file for this reason. However, the letter appears to deal with a possible appeal of a Worker’s Compensation matter. I am concerned that the applicant may not be clear that any appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board is separate from her Application to this Tribunal, and has separate requirements for the filing of documents. The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca, or from the Registrar. Pages 2 – 3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to her, including advice that may be available through the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of May, 2010.
”signed by”_______________
Judith Keene
Vice-chair