White v. Transport V.A., 2010 HRTO 487

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Micheal White

Applicant

-and-

Transport V.A. (Ontario) Inc. and ADS Employment Agency

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: March 3, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 487

Indexed as: White v. Transport V.A.

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 on the grounds of family status and disability in the context of employment.

2In essence, the applicant alleges that his employment was terminated while he was unable to attend work for health reasons and because some of his family members were ill.

3The respondent Transport V.A. Inc. has filed a Response. It denies the allegations of discrimination and states that, at all material times, the applicant was an employee of ADS Employment Agency (“ADS”).

4The applicant has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to add ADS as a respondent. The Request was served on the respondent and on ADS.

5In the RFOP, the applicant indicates that he wishes to add ADS as a party to the proceeding. He describes the order he is seeking as follows:

Employment relationship. No contact with anybody from ADS. To order party disclose contact person.

6The respondent does not object to ADS Employment Agency being added as a party to the proceeding. ADS has not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so under the Tribunal’s Rules has elapsed.

7In the circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to add ADS as a respondent in these proceedings. The applicant’s RFOP is granted in this regard and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

8Although there is some ambiguity to what he is seeking, I understand the applicant to be requesting an order that Transport V.A. Inc. disclose the name of a contact person at ADS. Transport V.A. Inc. has not responded to this aspect of the RFOP.

9In my view, the name of the ADS employee or employees who liased between the applicant and Transport V.A. Inc. is information that is arguably relevant to this proceeding.

10Accordingly, within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents are ordered to disclose to the applicant the name of the employee or employees of ADS who liased between the applicant and Transport V.A. Inc.

11I am not seized of this matter.