Alysha Pizel v. Dove Foods Ltd., 2011 HRTO 2140

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alysha Pizel

Applicant

-and-

Dove Foods Ltd., Wendy Parsons, Catherine Taylor, Janice Catt and Karl Schoenwald

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: November 29, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 2140 Indexed as: Pizel v. Dove Foods Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dove Foods Ltd., Respondent ) Evan Gogou, Representative

1This is an Application filed on May 11, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment.

2In the Application, the applicant had named as respondents persons who may or may not be or have been her supervisors, but not the corporation or organization that employed her. The named respondents identified Dove Foods Ltd. as the applicant’s employer and, in response to a Case Assessment Direction dated October 13, 2011, provided an address for Dove Foods Ltd.

3The Tribunal sent a copy of a Case Assessment Direction dated November 8, 2011, along with a copy of the Application and Response documents already filed, to Dove Foods Ltd. The Case Assessment Direction indicated that the Tribunal proposed to add Dove Foods Ltd. as a respondent to this Application and invited its written submissions on the issue within two weeks of the Case Assessment Direction.

4The submissions from Dove Foods Ltd. on whether it is a proper respondent have now been received. The company does not appear to dispute it is or was the applicant’s employer, but argues that “after review of all the documents … there is not adequate reasons for Dove Food Limited to be named as a respondent”. The company states that there were no direct dealings between the applicant and the owners of the company and that the personally named respondents as “store management” were the people who had direct dealings with the applicant.

5The Tribunal recently held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513, that when determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:

(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?

(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?

(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

6The application of the first question involves considering whether there are allegations made in the Application that could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code.

7In considering the second question, the Tribunal applies the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, at para. 5, which focus principally on whether there is an organization that is part of the proceeding which is able to take responsibility for the conduct, and whether the conduct of the individual respondent is a central issue in the proceedings. The factors from Persaud, supra, are applicable to both requests to add individual respondents and requests to remove them.

8Finally, in considering the third question, the Tribunal may consider a variety of factors, including the effects on the hearing process of adding the proposed respondent, the reasons the proposed respondent was not named in the Application or Response, and prejudice to the other parties.

9Given that the employment relationship is not denied, the personal respondents are supervisors and managers of the applicant, the Application is in respect of employment and the type of relief sought if a breach of the Code is established, Dove Foods Ltd. will be added as a respondent in this Application and the style of cause amended accordingly.

10The respondent, Dove Foods Ltd., is directed to file a full Response within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant may file a further Reply in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.

11I am not seized.