Tony Lagana v. Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. and Rob Castellano, 2010 HRTO 831

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tony Lagana

Applicant

-and-

Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. and Rob Castellano

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Tony Lagana

Applicant

-and-

Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P.

Respondent ______________________________________________________________________

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: April 15, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 831

Indexed as: Lagana v. Saputo Dairy Products Canada

1These are two Applications made under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with two formal Requests for an Order During Proceedings made by the applicant as well as a further request made by the applicant to the Tribunal.

2The applicant’s first Request for an Order During Proceedings asks that the respondents be ordered to disclose the notes made by an employee of the corporate respondent, Pat Roehl, in relation to a meeting on June 4, 2007, and that the respondents provide a list of names for all the employees who worked in the corporate respondent’s warehouse in 2007 and their wages. The applicant states that the notes of the meeting are relevant to his Applications and that a list of employees is required in order for him to prepare his witness list.

3The respondents state in their response to the Request that they have already disclosed Pat Roehl’s notes from the meeting of June 4, 2007 as part of their production of all arguably relevant documents. The respondents submit that the applicant fails to make any submissions or provide any evidence as to how the information regarding other employees in the warehouse in 2007 and the employees’ wages is relevant or arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

4The respondents have provided notes pertaining to a June 4, 2007 meeting (see Tab 18 of the materials provided under cover of a letter dated February 10, 2010) and so it would appear that this interest of the applicant has been met. However, the second part of the applicant’s Request is denied. The applicant has not provided persuasive reasons for why information related to other employees in the warehouse in 2007 is arguably relevant or required.

5The applicant’s second Request for an Order during Proceedings submits that the corporate respondent’s name should not be Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. but rather Saputo Foods Ltd. as the documents disclosed by the respondents consistently identify the corporate respondent as Saputo Foods Ltd. The applicant has attached with his Request documents to indicate that he has been making corporate searches to determine the corporate respondent’s proper name and trying to clarify whether the corporate respondent is a “federal” or “provincial” corporation.

6The respondents submit that Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. was named as a partnership in Ontario in May 2009. The respondents submit that Saputo Foods Limited is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of Canada and that in March 2009, Saputo Foods Limited, Saputo Cheese Ltd., and 45013254 FMB-1B Limited were amalgamated to form Saputo Foods Limited. Saputo Foods Limited is a partner in Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. which is the parent company of Saputo Foods Limited. The respondents maintain that Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. is the proper party to the dispute.

7The applicant’s Request to change the named corporate respondent is denied. I am satisfied that Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. is properly named as the corporate respondent. Importantly, in an earlier Request for an Order During Proceedings filed by the respondents, the respondents indicated that Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. is prepared to accept liability on behalf of the individual respondents (although liability is denied) and that Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. can respond to and remedy the applicant’s complaints (though the need for remedy is denied). This should address any concern the applicant may have about whether Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. is a corporate entity that can potentially be held liable for what happened to him. The applicant’s further concern about whether the corporate respondent is a “federal” or “provincial” organization (which may have been a concern about whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in this matter), has also been addressed by the indication that Saputo Dairy Products Canada G.P. is a named partnership in Ontario. The corporate respondent has not argued that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

8The applicant made a further Request to the Tribunal. The applicant wrote a letter to the Interim Chair of the Tribunal on December 15, 2009 asking for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Interim Decision that determined that his two Applications should be heard together: 2009 HRTO 1943. In a letter dated December 15, 2009, the Registrar replied to the applicant on behalf of the Interim Chair stating that the applicant should make his request to the Registrar and that he should include a Form 23 confirming that a copy of this request was delivered to the respondents. On December 31, 2009, the applicant provided a copy of his letter to the Interim Chair to the respondents along with a Form 23 to the Tribunal. In an e-mail dated April 6, 2010, the applicant wrote to the Registrar asking for why his letter and request for reconsideration had not been addressed.

9Section 45.7(1) of the Code states that any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider a decision in accordance with the Tribunal Rules. Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. The decision to have the applicant’s two Applications heard together is not a final decision and as such is not subject to reconsideration. Consequently, the applicant’s request is denied.

10However, even if the Tribunal could reconsider Interim Decisions, I would not grant the applicant’s request for reconsideration. The applicant has not provided compelling or extraordinary reasons for why the Interim Decision should be reconsidered or why the public interest in the finality of decisions should be overlooked.

11I remain satisfied that there are common issues of fact given that both Applications arise out of related incidents from the applicant’s employment in 2007 with the respondents. There are common and interrelated issues of law not the least being the fact that the one Application is based on an allegation of reprisal for events raised in the other Application.

12There is a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. Hearing these Applications together will reduce the need for the repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results.