Micheal White v. Transport V.A. Inc., 2010 HRTO 556

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Micheal White

Applicant

-and-

Transport V.A. Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: March 15, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 556

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 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”), not Transport V.A. Inc.

4The applicant then filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to add ADS as a respondent. The Request was served on the respondent and on ADS. It appears that ADS did not, however, receive a copy of the Application.

5In the Request, 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. In an earlier Interim Decision, the Tribunal indicated that ADS had not filed a Response to the Request. The Tribunal concluded that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to add ADS as a respondent.

7In fact, ADS had filed a Response, although the document had not been brought to the attention of the Vice-chair determining the Request. In its Response, ADS did not make representations, but sought clarification about the proceedings to which it might be added. ADS’s questions seem to stem from the fact that it received a copy of the Request but did not receive a copy of the Application.

8In the circumstances, ADS should be provided with a copy of the Application and have an opportunity to make further submissions before the Tribunal determines whether it should be added as a respondent.

9Accordingly, ADS will be provided with a copy of the Application, along with this Interim Decision. Within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision, ADS may provide to the parties and file with the Tribunal submissions regarding whether it should be added as a respondent to these proceedings.

10I am not seized of this matter.