Thompson v. New Heights Community Health Centres, 2010 HRTO 888

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Barbara Thompson

Applicant

-and-

New Heights Community Health Centres and Andrea Cohen

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: April 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 888

Indexed as: Thompson v. New Heights Community Health Centres

1This Application was filed on June 29, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of the personal respondent and a request for particulars and production. I have also issued directions regarding bifurcation of the proceeding to ensure the fair, just and expeditious hearing of this Application, which is scheduled to proceed on May 13, 2010.

Bifurcation

2I have determined that it would be fair, just and expeditious to bifurcate the hearing. Thus, the hearing commencing on May 13, 2010 will only address whether the applicant's Code rights have been breached. If required, a hearing with respect to remedy will be scheduled at a later date.

Particulars and Production

3The respondents seek further particulars. In their Response to a Request for an Order, the applicant appears to have provided the requested particulars. The Tribunal will therefore not make a further order in this respect. Any further disputes regarding the sufficiency of the particulars should be addressed to the adjudicator at the hearing. The requests for particulars and production relating to remedy are no longer required at this stage of the proceeding.

Removal of a Party

4The Tribunal has generally considered the following factors as set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at paras 4-5 in deciding whether to remove personal respondents from a proceeding:

1. Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?

2. Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent's deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who [is] sought to be removed?

3. Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?

4. Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?

5. Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?

In considering whether any compelling reason exists to continue the proceeding against a personal respondent, one way of approaching this question is to ask whether it is necessary to involve this person as a party in order to have a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the complaint.

5The applicant opposed the removal of the personal respondent, Andrea Cohen on the basis that as the Executive Director, she was directly involved in the decision making that led to the termination of employment. It appears that the applicant may be alleging that the decision to terminate her employment was related to some form of racial bias against young black males. In these circumstances, it would be premature to remove the personal respondent.

6I am not seized of these matters.