Carol Visneskie v. 1782281 Ontario Ltd., 2010 HRTO 1592

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carol Visneskie

Applicant

-and-

1782281 Ontario Ltd.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1592

Indexed as: Visneskie v. 1782281 Ontario

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. Her Application named both an organizational respondent, Dean and Lori’s Groceries (later identified by the respondents as 1782281 Ontario Ltd.), and an individual respondent, Dean Butt (identified by the respondents as Salahuddin (Dean) Butt).

2This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) to remove the individual respondent. The respondents filed a Form 23 indicating that the Request for Order was properly served on the applicant by mailing the Request to her on June 23, 2010. The applicant has filed no response to the Request for Order.

3The respondents state that in terminating the applicant’s employment, Mr. Butt was at all times “acting on behalf of the corporation, not as an individual.” The applicant identifies Mr. Butt as the owner of the business in her Application and the respondents identify Mr. Butt as a director of the corporation.

4In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, at para. 4, the Tribunal reiterated its concern about the “unnecessary naming of personal respondents” and offered a framework for considering whether to remove personal respondents:

…. the following non-exhaustive list of factors may be helpful in assessing whether a personal respondent should be removed:

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

b. 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?

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

d. 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?

e. 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.

5There is no issue with respect to the deemed liability of the corporate respondent for the conduct of Mr. Butt, nor has the applicant raised any issue with respect to the corporate respondent’s ability to respond to or remedy the alleged infringement. There is no compelling reason on the face of the Application for continuing against this individual, nor has the applicant identified any prejudice that might result from removing him as a respondent to the proceeding. Accordingly, I order Salahuddin Butt removed as a party to this proceeding.

6I am not seized of this matter.