HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sylvain Lavoie
Applicant
-and-
Philippe Bechard and Daniel Lemire
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Lavoie v. Bechard
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) which alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
2The applicant named two respondents, Philippe Bechard and Daniel Lemire, who, in filing their Responses, named the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”) as an additional respondent.
3The WSIB has filed a Response and a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal of the Application against it for a number of reasons.
4Neither the applicant nor the two personal respondents have filed submissions regarding the WSIB’s Request.
5On September 27, 2010, a Case Assessment Direction was issued directing the applicant and two personal respondents to deliver to the other parties, and file with the Tribunal, their submissions on the question of whether the WSIB should continue to be named as a respondent in this matter in light of the fact that the applicant does not make any allegations of discrimination against the WSIB or seek any remedy against it, and in light of the factors outlined in the Tribunal’s decision in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513 (“Smyth”).
6The Smyth decision found that when determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:
(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?
The application of the first stage involves considering whether there are allegations made in the Application that could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code. At the second stage, the Tribunal applies the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, at para. 5, which focus principally on whether there is an organization that is part of the proceeding, which is able to take responsibility for the conduct, and whether the conduct of the individual respondent is a central issue in the proceedings. The factors from Persaud, supra, are applicable to both requests to add individual respondents and requests to remove them. At the third stage, the Tribunal may consider a variety of factors, including the effects on the hearing process of adding the proposed respondent, the reasons the proposed respondent was not named in the Application or Response, and prejudice to the other parties.
7The Case Assessment Direction indicated that the WSIB did not need to provide additional submissions unless directed by the Tribunal.
8No submissions have been received from the parties.
9In light of the fact that the applicant has made no allegations against the WSIB and sought no remedy against it, and in light of the factors outlined in Smyth, the Request for Order filed by the WSIB is granted. The WSIB is removed as a party to these proceedings and the style of cause amended accordingly.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto this 23rd day of December, 2010.
”signed by”____________
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair