Baker v. Cambridge (City), 2010 HRTO 185

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Baker

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the City of Cambridge

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: January 27, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 185

Indexed as: Baker v. Cambridge (City)

1This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of three personal respondents named in the human rights complaint underlying the Applications.

2The applicable principles for removing parties were enunciated in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31:

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 [is] 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?

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.

3The respondents agree that the personal respondents were acting in the course of their employment with the City and that there is no issue with respect to the City’s deemed or vicarious liability. The applicant has not sought a specific remedy against the personal respondents. There is no issue as the corporate respondent’s ability to provide a remedy. In these circumstances, I do not see a compelling reason to continue this Application against George Vandermey, Terry Allen and William Chesney and they are removed as personal respondents. The style of cause is amended.