HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Elaine Chedore
Applicant
-and-
McBoyco Limited, McDonald’s (Brock Location), Matt Staples and Mike Michlik
Respondents
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Chedore v. McBoyco
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on March 8, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of age.
2The applicant was employed at various McDonald’s restaurants owned by the respondent McBoyko Limited (“McBoyco”), including the Brock location, from August 2003 to April 2009. The applicant’s employment was terminated when McBoyco sold its various McDonald’s locations to another company. The applicant believes that she was the only employee dismissed at this time and she believes that her employment was terminated because of her age. The applicant alleges that she later attempted to secure re-employment at the Brock location; however, she was refused re-employment because of her age.
3The Tribunal has received Responses from all the respondents, except from McDonald’s (Brock Location). While it remains unclear, the Responses appear to suggest that McDonald’s (Brock Location) is not a legal entity.
4In its Response, McBoyco advised the Tribunal that it was the applicant’s predecessor employer and that its assets, including McDonald’s (Brock Location), were sold to Dendres Corporation. McBoyco further advised the individual respondents were now in the employ of Dendres Corporation.
5On August 19, 2010, counsel for Dendres Corporation wrote to the Tribunal seeking clarification as to its status in the Application. Dendres Corporation confirmed that it purchased McBoyco’s assets in March 2009 and that some of the allegations raised in the Application appear to relate to Dendres Corporation.
6The Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to receive submissions with respect to whether the Application can proceed against McDonald’s (Brock Location) and whether Dendres Corporation should be added as a party to the Application. Dendres Corporation is directed to file submissions with the Tribunal and deliver copies of the submissions to each of the parties within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
7The parties are directed to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal any response to Dendres Corporation’s submissions by no later than 10 days from the date of Dendres Corporation’s submissions.
8Dendres Corporation and the parties are also directed to specifically address in their submissions the factors articulated in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, with respect to adding a respondent:
(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?
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 8^th^ day of September, 2010.
“signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair