Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Kirk Munroe
Applicant
-and-
Algonquin College
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Munroe v. Algonquin College
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 the provision of services on the basis of disability. His Application named both an organizational respondent, Algonquin College ("Algonquin"), and an individual respondent, Robert Gillett, the President of Algonquin.
2This Interim Decision addresses the respondents' Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondent as a party to this proceeding. The applicant has filed a Response to the Request for Order opposing the Request.
3In *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.
4There is no issue with respect to the deemed liability of Algonquin for the conduct of Mr. Gillett, nor has the applicant raised any issue with respect to Algonquin's ability to respond to or remedy the alleged infringement. The only allegation against Mr. Gillett is that he failed to take action when the applicant informed him about the conduct of Earl Green, a security officer with Algonquin.
5There 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 Robert Gillett removed as a party to this proceeding.
6I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of October, 2010.
"signed by"__________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair