Charron v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, 2010 HRTO 752

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Melanie Charron

Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre and Morag Anderson

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 752

Indexed as: Charron v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre

1This Interim Decision addresses the adding of the Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre as an organizational respondent (“the proposed respondent”) in this Application filed on April 29, 2009 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2On her Application form, the applicant listed Morag Anderson as an individual respondent in response to the question “Name the person you believe discriminated against you (the Respondent)”. In the Application, the applicant identified the individual respondent as being the executive director of the proposed respondent, which was the applicant’s employer. She alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy in employment when she was terminated from her employment. She alleges that the individual respondent and a member from the proposed respondent’s board of directors terminated her. At the time of completing her Application, the applicant was self-represented.

3The file was scheduled for mediation in January 2010. Several days prior to the mediation, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and indicated that other persons should have been named as respondents. Following the mediation, which did not resolve the issues, the applicant, now represented by counsel, filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) to add the proposed respondent. The applicant submits that the essence of her Application is discrimination in employment and there is no prejudice to either the individual respondent or the proposed respondent if it is added. The respondent did not file a Response to a RFOP and the time for doing so has now passed.

4The Tribunal has applied a 3-part test when determining a request to add a respondent: Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513. The Tribunal should consider the following three questions:

(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?

5Applying the test to the circumstances of this case, I will assume, without deciding, that there are allegations in the Application that could support a finding against the proposed organizational respondent. The individual respondent is the executive director of the proposed respondent and, the Response submits, was acting within her scope of authority as an employee of the proposed respondent in her dealings with the applicant, which included terminating the applicant. The Response contains allegations and information that is within the knowledge of the proposed respondent including the applicant not following the proposed respondent’s policies and the applicant placing calls to the proposed respondent. The applicant, who was self-represented at the time of filing her Application, suggested that the proposed respondent was a respondent when she provided information about the proposed respondent and named the individual respondent as a contact person in response to question A7 on the Application form.

6Further, unlike Haynes v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, 2008 HRTO 26 and Sinclair v. London (City), 2008 HRTO 11 where the Tribunal refused to add a proposed respondent where the request was not made in a timely manner and would result in delay and prejudice to the hearing process, the applicant’s request to add the proposed respondent has been made before any hearing dates have been scheduled.

7The style of cause is amended to include the proposed respondent. The Application, Response of the individual respondent and Reply shall be sent to the proposed respondent which shall have 35 days to file a Response. The applicant shall have 5 days from the date the proposed respondent files its Response to file another Reply.

8I am not seized of this matter.