Guest v. Southlake Regional Health Centre, 2010 HRTO 195

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Rose Guest

Applicant

-and-

Southlake Regional Health Centre

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Rose Guest

Applicant

-and-

Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada and Kimberley Kaufman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: January 28, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 195 Indexed as: Guest v. Southlake Regional Health Centre

1This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of the two personal respondents named in T-0868-08 (the "employer Application"). The applicant did not file a Response to the Request for Order.

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.

3There is no dispute that the personal respondents were acting in the course of their employment with the respondent employer and therefore no issue with respect to the respondent employer's deemed or vicarious liability. The applicant has not sought a specific remedy against the personal respondents. There is no issue as the respondent employer's ability to provide a remedy. In these circumstances, I do not see a compelling reason to continue this Application against Mike Swanton and Jim Stevenson and they are removed as personal respondents. The style of cause is amended.