Frolov v. Human Rights Legal Support Centre, 2010 HRTO 138

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

David Frolov

Applicant

-and-

Human Rights Legal Support Centre

Respondent

Interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: January 21, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 138

Indexed as: Frolov v. Human Rights Legal Support Centre

1This is an Application filed on April 9, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code") in which the applicant alleges he was discriminated against in goods, services and facilities on the basis of sex, age and reprisal. The respondents filed a Response denying the allegations.

2The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings pursuant to Rules 1.7(b) and 19 for an order removing the personal respondent, Raj Anand, as a party to this Application. The applicant has taken no position on the issue and the deadline for filing a Form 11 under Rule 19 has now passed.

3Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal's Rules affirms the Tribunal's power to "add or remove a party". In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 the Tribunal outlined a "non-exhaustive list of factors" that may be helpful in assessing whether a personal respondent should be removed including:

1. Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?

2. Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent's deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who sought to be removed?

3. Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?

4. 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?

5. Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?

4The respondents have addressed each of the factors outlined above in turn. They argue that the applicant's allegations can be fully explored and liability determined without Mr. Anand's involvement as a personally named respondent. They maintain that Mr. Anand, as the Chair of the Board of the corporate respondent, is not an employee of the company, plays no role in the daily decisions about the provision of legal services and had no direct involvement in any of the events alleged by the applicant. The respondents confirm that, given the allegations made and the relief requested by the applicant, the corporate respondent is best placed to respond to and remedy any alleged Code infringement. The respondents suggest that there are no compelling reasons for continuing the proceedings against the personal respondent given that the applicant does not seek any specific remedy against Mr. Anand and that the applicant will not be impaired in his ability to have a full hearing on the merits.

5On my review of the submissions and the material before me, including the allegations made by the applicant and relief requested, I am satisfied that the personal respondent should be removed from this proceeding. There is no allegation relating to Mr. Anand's actions as an individual and there are no facts alleged that, if proved, could give rise to a finding that Mr. Anand personally violated the Code. Further, I see no prejudice to the applicant's ability to proceed with the hearing of this matter and receive an adequate remedy if an infringement of the Code is established.

6I therefore order that Raj Anand be removed as a respondent and the title of proceedings be amended accordingly.

7I am not seized of this matter.