White v. Transport V.A., 2011 HRTO 138

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael White

Applicant

-and-

Transport V. A. Inc. and ADS Employment Services

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: January 19, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 138

Indexed as: White v. Transport V.A.

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of family status and disability in the area of employment. In his Application, the applicant agreed to participate in mediation.

2The respondent, Transport V.A. Inc (“Transport”), filed a Response (Form 2) on December 16, 2009. Transport denied the allegations of discrimination and indicated that, at all material times, the applicant was an employee of ADS Employment Agency (“ADS”). Transport submitted that, since it had no employment relationship with the applicant, the Application should be dismissed as against it. In its Response, Transport agreed to participate in mediation.

3On January 15, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Order seeking to add ADS as a respondent to the Application. The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision on March 15, 2010, providing ADS with a copy of the Application and seeking submissions from ADS as to whether or not it should be added as a respondent to the proceedings.

4On March 17, 2010, ADS wrote to the Tribunal and advised that it agreed that ADS should be added as a respondent to the Application and that Transport should be removed from the Application.

5On December 16, 2010, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and advised that he opposes the request to remove Transport as a respondent.

6As a result of an administrative oversight, a formal Tribunal order was not issued regarding the Request to add ADS; however, various steps have been taken in the Tribunal process with ADS’ involvement. In light of ADS’ consent to be added as a respondent, the Tribunal now orders that ADS be added as a party to this Application and the style of cause be amended accordingly.

7The parties have filed various requests for orders, including a Request to remove Transport; a Request to amend the Application; and a Request for production. Before the Tribunal can consider any of these issues, the Tribunal requires a Response (Form 2) from ADS and an indication of whether or not ADS is willing to participate in mediation.

8ADS may obtain the Form 2 Response and a Respondent’s Guide from the HRTO’s website www.hrto.ca or upon request to the Registrar. The Tribunal orders ADS to file its Form 2 Response to the Application with the Tribunal within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The Tribunal will deliver the Response to the other parties in accordance with the Rules.

9The applicant must deliver a Reply to the Response to the other parties and file it with the Tribunal if he intends to prove a version of facts different from those set out in the Response unless these facts are already contained in his Application. Please see Rule 9.

10Following receipt of ADS’ Response and any Reply, the Tribunal will consider the parties’ Requests and may issue case management directions as appropriate. If the parties consent to mediation, the Application will be placed in the queue for mediation and a date scheduled accordingly.

11I am not seized.