Abdurahman Ahmed v. Sitel Corporation, 2010 HRTO 218

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Abdurahman Ahmed Applicant

-and-

Sitel Corporation Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: January 29, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 218 Indexed as: Ahmed v. Sitel

1This Application was filed December 10, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of the personal respondent.

2The Tribunal has generally considered the following factors as set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at paras 4-5 in deciding whether to remove personal respondents from a proceeding:

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 respondent, Jason Bleakley, the previous site director, is no longer an employee of the corporate respondent. The corporate respondent has accepted that Mr. Bleakley was acting in the course of his employment, that they are vicariously liable for his actions and that there is no issue as the corporate respondent's ability to provide a remedy.

4I note further that the original complaint did not raise any factual allegations involving Mr. Bleakley. In these circumstances, I do not see a compelling reason to continue this Application against the personal respondent and he is removed from the style of cause.