HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Allan Binsley

Applicant

-and-

Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd. and Daniel Pidgeon

Respondents

Interm decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: November 7, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2001

Indexed as: Binsley v. Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd.

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on April 26, 2010. He named two individual respondents, persons he identifies as his immediate supervisor and the sale’s manager, but not his employer, Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd. Both individual respondents filed Responses.

2The applicant subsequently brought two Requests for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) seeking to add Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd. as a respondent to his Application, and requesting to remove his immediate supervisor, Danilo Raponi, as a respondent.

3The applicant filed Statements of Delivery (Form 23), indicating that he had delivered the two Requests for Order to the affected parties/organization, but no Responses to the Request for Order (Form 11) or other communications have been received from the individual respondents or Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd. and the time for doing so has now passed.

4Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure affirms the Tribunal’s power to “add or remove a party”.

[5] Section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code states:

For the purposes of this Act, except subsection 2(2), subsection s (2), section 7 and subsection 46.2 (1), any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent of a corporation … shall be deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted to be done by the corporation.

6It appears from reviewing the allegations in the Application that Danilo Raponi was acting in the course of his employment. Moreover, his (and the applicant’s) employer is Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd., which pursuant to the above provision would be deemed liable for the actions of its employees. The Tribunal is mindful of the fact that the applicant is unrepresented and may not have been aware of that provision.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal orders: (1) that the Application is dismissed as against Danilo Raponi; and (2) Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd. is added as a respondent to the Application. The style of cause is amended accordingly. Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd. has 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision in which to file a Response to the Application.

6I am not seized of this Application.