Farooqi v. Intercon Security, 2011 HRTO 1744

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sara Farooqi Applicant

-and-

Intercon Security Ltd. Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Saba Farooqi Applicant

-and-

The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Saba Farooqi Applicant

-and-

Intercon Security Limited Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Sarah Farooqi Applicant

-and-

The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company Respondent

interim decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: September 22, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1744 Indexed as: Farooqi v. Intercon Security

Reasons for Decision

1The applicants filed Applications under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and sex in the area of goods, services and facilities. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) made by the respondent, The Manufacturer Life Insurance Company, (“Manulife”) seeking the dismissal of both Applications as against it.

2Manulife owns and operates the apartment building at 44 Charles Street West in the City of Toronto. As owner of the building, Manulife provides security for the building through a contract with the respondent, Intercon Security Limited (“Intercon”). The applicants were roommates and resided in the building.

3The applicants raise serious allegations of harassment and discrimination against a number of security guards engaged by Intercon arising out of their attempt to move out of the apartment building.

4Manulife seeks the dismissal of the Applications as against it on the basis that the security guards were not its employees. Manulife states that Intercon provides security services to the apartment building pursuant to a contract for services and that, at all material times, the security guards were Intercon employees.

5In my view, this is not reason to dismiss the Applications against Manulife. Manulife managed the apartment building and in that role provided security for the building. Security was responsible for, among other things, enforcing the rules and procedures adopted by Manulife in the course of managing the building including the rules pertaining to moving out of the building. In this respect, the security guards might be construed as agents of Manulife.

6This Interim Decision does not purport to determine the merits of the discrimination allegations in the Applications, including Manulife’s culpability, if any. However, in my view, depending on the evidence presented at the hearing, there could be an independent finding against Manulife. As such, it is not appropriate to dismiss the Applications against Manulife at this stage.

7The Request is dismissed.

8I am not seized.