HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Pennington

Applicant

-and-

Taylor Creek Co-operative Inc., Dione Nembhard, Don Melanson, Michael McFarlane, John Vanlaere, Julia Cordingley, Judi Lane, William Downey, Allan Calvert, Geoff Fryer and Frances Stroud

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: March 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 643

Indexed as: Pennington v. Taylor Creek Co-operative

1The applicant has filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (“the Code”) alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of sex and reprisal.

2The Application identifies the Taylor Creek Co-operative as the corporate respondent and names Dione Nembhard, a manager with the corporate respondent, and nine other members of the corporate respondent’s Board of Directors (the Board) as personal respondents.

3On February 12, 2010, the Registrar sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Against Certain Respondents in respect of the nine members of the Board on the basis that the Application as against these respondents is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because “the narrative [in the Application] setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by these individuals.” The Application has yet to be delivered to any of the responding parties.

4On February 24, 2010, the applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice. He argues that the Board hires the management for the office and approves the manager’s decisions with respect to moving members internally from one unit to another. The Application alleges this policy and these decisions have the effect of discriminating against the applicant.

Decision

5Given the applicant’s submission that the manager must have approval from the Board when transferring members from one unit to another, it is not plain and obvious to me that the individual members serving on the Board should be removed as personal respondents at this time.

6The Tribunal will deliver the Application, this Interim Decision, and the Notice of Intent to Dismiss and the applicant’s submissions to all the respondents named in the Application.

7This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application. Any of the respondents may make submissions on whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction or may ask that the Tribunal remove some or all of the personal respondents as parties to this proceeding having regard to the factors in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31.

8I am not seized of this matter.