HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Chan Vo Thai
Applicant
-and-
Hing Loong Investments Ltd. and China City Supermarket
Respondents
interiM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Thai v. Hing Loong Investments
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 December 9, 2009, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services. The applicant alleges that he attended at China City Supermarket and, amongst other things, was denied entry because he uses a motorized scooter.
2The applicant initially named just Hing Loong Investment Ltd. as a respondent. The respondent Hing Loong Investment Ltd. did not file a Response. Accordingly, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 549 (the “March Interim Decision”), confirming that it had not filed a Response, directing it to file a Response and warning about the consequences of not filing a Response. The Tribunal sent the Interim Decision to the respondent Hing Loong Investment Ltd. by courier, but it was returned with the explanation that “appointment required”. The respondent Hing Loong Investment Ltd. has not filed a Response.
3A Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated April 1, 2010 was issued by Tribunal. In the CAD, the applicant was directed to provide written submissions setting out the basis for naming Hing Loong Investment Ltd. as a respondent since his allegations were against China City Supermarket, explaining how Hing Loong Investment Ltd. was alleged to have violated the Code, and describing the relationship between Hing Loong Investment Ltd. and China City Supermarket. The CAD was sent to Hing Loong Investment Ltd. by courier and regular mail. The courier returned the CAD without an explanation. The copy of the CAD sent by regular mail was not returned. The respondent Hing Loong Investment Ltd. still has not filed a Response.
4On April 15, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to add another party, China City Supermarket, as a respondent and an order requiring the respondents to provide information about the owner of China City Supermarket. The respondent Hing Loong Investment Ltd. has not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has now passed.
5In the RFOP the applicant submits that he named the respondent Hing Loong Investment Ltd. as a respondent, instead of China City Supermarket, because a corporate search failed to disclose any information about the store. He believes that there is a reasonable possibility that the owner of the store is the same individual as the owner of the building in which the store is located. A title search was conducted on the property and it was determined that the owner of the building is Hing Loong Investment Ltd., which was then named as a respondent. The applicant requests that China City Supermarket be added as a respondent and that the Tribunal order the respondent Hing Loong Investment Ltd. and China City Supermarket to provide information about the store’s owner.
6In Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, the Tribunal set out the factors to be considered when determining a request to add a respondent. They are:
(1)Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
(2)If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
(3)Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
7Applying the test to the circumstances in this case, I will assume, without deciding, that there are allegations that could support a finding against the proposed respondent China City Supermarket since the allegations are about the alleged discrimination that took place at the store. China City Supermarket is added as a respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly.
8The respondent China City Supermarket shall be provided with a copy of the Application, this Interim Decision as well as the March Interim Decision and the CAD, and is directed to file a Response to the Application (in Form 2) not later than 35 days after a copy of the Application is sent. The Tribunal shall send this information to the respondent China City Supermarket by courier and regular mail.
9The applicant’s request to have the Tribunal order the respondents to provide information about the owner of China City Supermarket as well as the effect of the failure of the respondent Hing Loong Investment Ltd. shall be considered by the Tribunal after the respondent China City Supermarket files its response, or when the time for doing so has passed.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of June, 2010.
“Signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair