Hoffmeyer v. Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd., 2010 HRTO 571

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Abby Hoffmeyer

Applicant

-and-

Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd., The Parks Companies, Sun Terra Farms Ltd., David James and Megan Jentz

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: March 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 571

Indexed as: Hoffmeyer v. Great Lakes Specialty Meats

1Abby Hoffmeyer alleges in her Application that Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd., David James, Megan Jentz, The Parks Companies and Sun Terra Farms Ltd. discriminated against her in employment on the basis of disability contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision addresses the issue of whether The Parks Companies and Sun Terra Farms should be required to file Responses.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant was employed by Great Lakes Speciality Meats Ltd. as a general labourer. She alleges that the respondents refused to accommodate her disability, referring in particular to a number of incidents in November 2008 when she was assigned jobs she could not physically perform. The Application alleges that the applicant responded to these incidents by raising her need for accommodation with, amongst others, Megan Jentz in the Human Resources Department and David James, the Plant Manager at Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd., both of whom have been named as personal respondents. On December 2, 2008, David James told the applicant that her employment was terminated.

3The Application was filed with the Tribunal on August 5, 2009. On October 20, 2009, Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. filed a Response which also appears to be on behalf of its employees, David James and Megan Jentz. No Responses were provided by The Parks Companies or Sun Terra Farms Ltd.

4On December 2, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the applicant’s “Request”) to add Great Lakes Specialty Meats of Canada Co. as a respondent on the grounds that Great Lakes Speciality Meats Ltd. had become Great Lakes Specialty Meats of Canada Co. as of August 19, 2009.

5In an Interim Decision dated February 6, 2010, 2010 HRTO 271, the Tribunal ruled that Great Lakes Specialty Meats of Canada Co. was not a respondent given the general prohibition against naming successor organizations as respondents. The Interim Decision also asked for submissions from the applicant as to why The Park Companies and Sun Terra Farms Ltd. were proper parties to the Application and whether Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. was still a corporate entity. The applicant has provided submissions, as requested.

6In brief, the applicant submits that The Parks Companies and Sun Terra Farms Ltd. are properly named respondents, in that the two companies were closely associated with Great Lakes Speciality Meats Ltd. and that, pursuant to the “common employer doctrine” they were both corporate entities that exercised sufficient “common control” over the applicant’s employment such that they can be identified as common employers. The applicant identifies Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. as being owned and operated by The Parks Companies and that David James, a named personal respondent, was employed by The Parks Companies to be the general manager for Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. The applicant believes David James’ accommodation while working for Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. was paid for by The Parks Companies, as was his weekly airfare to return to his home, and that these were further indicators that he was an “officer, official, employee or agent” of both Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. and The Parks Companies.

7The applicant submits that her remuneration while working at Great Lakes Specialty Meats. Ltd. came from Sun Terra Farms Ltd., and that any discrepancies in timesheets or pay for employees of Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. had to be resolved by Sun Terra Farms Ltd. She further contends that medical notes submitted by employees of Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. had to be sent to Sun Terra Farms Ltd. for processing. The applicant argues that these are indications that Sun Terra Farms Ltd. was a common employer for the applicant.

8I am satisfied that the applicant has provided sufficient information to indicate that Sun Terra Farms Ltd. and The Parks Companies could be respondents and should be directed to file Responses. Accordingly, these two organizations are required to submit Responses to the Application. It is open to these organizations to include in their Responses arguments as to why they may not be properly named as respondents. Responses must be filed within 35 days, as allowed for under Rule 8 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

9The applicant has submitted that, according to the most recent corporate inquiry, Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. is still registered as active. Sun Terra Farms Ltd. and The Parks Companies are directed to provide whatever information they may have about the current status of Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. and, if appropriate, how Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. should continue to be involved in this matter.

10According to the information received by the Tribunal, Sun Terra Farms Ltd. and The Parks Companies have both received copies of the Application and the Response provided by Great Lakes Specialty Meats Ltd. They have also received the materials submitted in relation to the Request made by Great Lakes Specialty Meats of Canada Inc. to be removed as a named respondent as well as the Tribunal’s subsequent Interim Decision and the applicant’s submissions in response to the Tribunal’s Interim Decision.

11The applicant will have up to 14 days after Responses are sent by Sun Terra Farms Ltd. and The Parks Companies to file a Reply, or, if appropriate, provide further submissions on the issue of Sun Terra Farms Ltd. and The Parks Companies being named as respondents.

12I am not seized of this matter.