Frank Paterno v. The Salvation Army, Centre of Hope, Nancy Kerr and Nancy Powers, 2010 HRTO 337

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Frank Paterno

Applicant

-and-

The Salvation Army, Centre of Hope, Nancy Kerr and Nancy Powers

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: February 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 337

Indexed as: Paterno v. Salvation Army

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against with respect to employment on the ground of sex. At issue are a suspension (allegedly because of a complaint made by the applicant against a female co-employee) and a subsequent complaint or complaints filed by female employees within the applicant’s workplace.

2On January 11, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to amend the Application and to add a party. He explains that his employment was terminated after he filed the Application and he seeks to add facts to the Application that relate to the termination of his employment. He seeks to add reprisal or threat of reprisal as an alleged ground of discrimination and wishes to amend the Application to request, as a remedy, that he be reinstated to his employment. Finally, he seeks to add Neil Lewis, Executive Director of the Salvation Army, as an individual respondent.

3The respondents have not responded to the RFOP and the time for doing so under the Tribunal’s Rules has elapsed.

The request to add a party

4The Tribunal, in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, explained that the following three considerations are relevant to deciding whether to add a respondent:

(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?

5At the outset, the Tribunal must consider whether there are allegations made in the Application or amendments sought to it that could lead to a finding that the Code was infringed.

6Even in light of the proposed amendments, the Application contains no allegations that could support a finding against the proposed respondent. None of the allegations in the Application or the proposed amendments refer directly or indirectly to the proposed respondent.

7In any event, there does not appear to be any question of the Salvation Army, Centre of Hope’s liability for any of the alleged violations of the Code. There is no compelling reason to include the individual as a respondent.

8The applicant’s request to add Neil Lewis as a respondent is denied.

Request to amend the Application

9In view of the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the amendments, and the absence of any apparent prejudice, I see no reason to deny the applicant an opportunity to make the requested amendments to the Application.

10In these circumstances, the applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted. The respondents may file amended Responses within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision.

11I am not seized of this matter.