George Orfanakos v. MTM Staffing Solutions Inc., Madhu Abhi and Davis and Henderson, 2010 HRTO 799

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

George Orfanakos

Applicant

-and-

MTM Staffing Solutions Inc., Madhu Abhi and Davis and Henderson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: April 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 799

Indexed as: Orfanakos v. MTM Staffing Solutions

1This is an Application filed on July 8, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of age.

2The Application initially named MTM Staffing Solutions Inc., a recruiting company, and Madhu Abhi, a consultant for MTM, as respondents.

3The applicant has, subsequently, filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add MTM’s client, Davis and Henderson, and Suzanne Mandrozos, their Vice President of Human Resources, as respondents. He asserts that an email from the personal respondent, Abhi, suggests that the corporate respondent, Davis and Henderson, was involved in the discriminatory decision not to hire him on the basis of age.

4The Form 10 was served on both respondents and on the parties named in paragraph 3 (above). The respondents have filed a Form 11 objecting to the Request. The potential respondents were served but have not responded. Their deadline for doing so has now passed.

5The test for adding respondents has been articulated at paragraph 12 in the recent decision, Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513:

When determining a request to add a respondent, 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?

6The allegations, if proven, could support a finding against the corporate respondent. It is not clear to me that the allegations could support a finding against the proposed personal respondent or that there is a compelling reason to include Suzanne Mandrozoz as a respondent.

7With respect to the issue of fairness, the applicant has made the Request to add the parties early in the process and the proposed respondents have not responded or asserted any prejudice.

8Accordingly, I order that Davis and Henderson be added as a respondent to this Application and the style of cause be amended accordingly. Suzanne Mandrozoz will not be added as a respondent.

9A copy of this Interim Decision, along with copies of the Application and Response filed by the other respondents will be sent to Davis and Henderson, who are then directed to file a Response within 35 days of receipt of the documents.

10I am not seized of this matter.