HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maureen Kropf
Applicant
-and-
Grand River Hospital
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Kropf v. Grand River Hospital
1This is an Application alleging discrimination in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that the corporate respondent and the personal respondents discriminated against her by requiring her to remove her wedding rings in order to comply with the corporate respondent's hand hygiene policy.
2The respondents filed a full Response to the Application and a Request for Order During Proceedings asking that the personal respondents be removed on the grounds that the personal respondents were acting in the normal course of their respective employments at all material times. The applicant opposes the Request for Order During Proceedings, arguing that the alleged discrimination was directed by the individual respondents.
3The Tribunal's general approach in cases where there is a corporate respondent and also personal respondents is set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, at paras. 4-5, and Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14, at para. 42. As stated in Sigrist:
The unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Code, a corporation is deemed to be liable for "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". Where there is no issue as to the ability of a corporate respondent to respond to or remedy an alleged Code infringement and no issue raised as to a corporate respondent's deemed or vicarious liability for the actions of an individual who is sought to be added as a personal respondent, then in my view the individual ought not be added as a personal respondent in the absence of some compelling juridical reason. A compelling juridical reason may exist, for example, where it is the individual conduct of a proposed personal respondent that is a central issue as opposed to actions which are more in the nature of following organizational practices or policies or where the nature of the alleged conduct of a proposed personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found.
4The factors that are commonly considered by the Tribunal when there is a request to remove personal respondents are as follows:
- 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 seeks 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?
5In this case, the Application concerns the corporate respondent's policy on hand hygiene. The applicant agrees that the personal respondents were acting in the course of their respective employments and there is no suggestion that the corporate respondent could provide an adequate remedy in the event that the allegations of a Code-infringement are upheld.
6There does not appear to be any compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondents and nor does it appear to be that the applicant's rights under the Code would be prejudiced if the personal respondents were removed.
7For these reasons, I find that the personal respondents should be removed and the style of cause has been amended accordingly.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of July, 2010.
Brian Cook
Vice-chair