Riddell v. TRW Canada, 2010 HRTO 929

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Riddell

Applicant

-and-

TRW Canada Limited, Carroll Sheppard, Michael Grey, Scott Parker, Sean Lumsden and Mark Bacro

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 28, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 929

Indexed as: Riddell v. TRW Canada

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on November 19, 2009. The Interim Decision determines whether to remove six personal respondents.

2The applicant filed her Application alleging that the corporate respondent and 11 employees discriminated against her in employment on the basis of disability, sex including sexual harassment, and sexual solicitation. All of the respondents filed Responses, with a Joint Response filed by the corporate respondent and the personal respondents Jim Whitehead, Christine Seymour, Theo Bouwheer and Ron Davies.

3The applicant submitted a Request for Order During Proceedings, dated March 5, 2010, seeking to remove Phil Learn, Jack Ambo, Jim Whitehead, Christine Seymour, Theo Bouwheer and Ron Davies as personal respondents (“the Request”). The applicant submitted that Phil Learn and Jack Ambo were named in error in the original Application. The applicant also submitted that it was not necessary to name Jim Whitehead, Christine Seymour, Theo Bouwheer and Ron Davies personally as there is no allegation of harassment on their part for which the corporate respondent would not be liable. None of the respondents have filed a Response to a Request for Order During Proceedings and the time for doing so has now passed.

4Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules affirms the Tribunal’s power to “add or remove a party”. The question of whether an individual is properly named as a personal respondent in a human rights application has been considered in a number of Tribunal decisions, including Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 and Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31. In Sigrist the Tribunal makes clear that the unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. In Persaud, supra, the Tribunal identified a list of factors to consider when determining whether a personal respondent should be removed (para. 5):

1. Is there 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 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?

5Having considered the applicant’s Request in light of these factors, I order that Phil Learn, Jack Ambo, Jim Whitehead, Christine Seymour, Theo Bouwheer and Ron Davies be removed as personal respondents to the Application. The style of cause is therefore amended to reflect their removal.

6I am not seized of this matter.