Hermione Goodridge v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board and Dave Petrie, 2010 HRTO 284

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hermione Goodridge

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa-Carleton District School Board and Dave Petrie

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: February 8, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 284

Indexed as: Goodridge v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board

1This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of three personal respondents. A Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) is scheduled for February 18, 2010.

2The applicable principles for removing parties were enunciated in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, at paras 4-5:

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 corporate respondent has accepted that it is liable for any of the conduct of the three personal respondents that may be found to violate the Code and 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 Peter Gamwell, Superintendent or Dan Wiseman, Coordinator of Student Services and Community Outreach. However, the allegations against the Principal, Dave Petrie include that he was not personally comfortable dealing with the applicant or her son because of race. There is reference to “intolerable” behaviour. While the allegations are extremely vague, at this stage I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to remove Dave Petrie as a personal respondent.