HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maurita Boyle
Applicant
-and-
The Hanover Police Services Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Boyle v. Hanover Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Maurita Boyle, Applicant ) Christian Vernon, Counsel
The Hanover Police Services Board,
Respondent ) Brenda Glover, Counsel
1This is an Application filed on December 2, 2009 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 on the ground of disability. The parties attended at a mediation but were unable to resolve the Application and it will accordingly be scheduled for hearing.
2The applicant, who was unrepresented at the time she filed her Application, named Hanover Police Services as the respondent, and provided as the respondent's contact person her union representative from the Hanover Police Association.
3The Hanover Police Services Board (the Board) filed a Response in which it states that the correct name of the respondent is The Hanover Police Services Board, which is the employer of the applicant. The Response addresses the allegations on their merits. Based on the Response, the Tribunal's style of cause in this matter has named the Board as the respondent.
4Following mediation, the applicant, who is now represented by legal counsel, filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings in which she seeks to amend her Application to provide more particulars of her claim of discrimination. In the Request, the applicant names the respondents as: the Board, the Hanover Police Service and the Chief of Police. The Request was delivered to counsel for the Board but not the Hanover Police Service or the Chief of Police.
5The Board's Response to the Request consented to the amendments, subject to being permitted the opportunity to submit a revised Response based on the additional particulars. The Board also noted that counsel for the Board does not represent the Hanover Police Service or the Chief, and that the applicant should give notice of the Application to these entities.
6By letter dated February 23, 2011, the Tribunal stated that as the applicant wishes to add the Hanover Police Service and Chief of Police as respondents to the Application, she must deliver the Request to them before the Tribunal will consider it.
7The applicant has responded to this letter by stating that the Request is not a request to add parties, but simply a request to amend the Application. The applicant states that the respondent is the Hanover Police Service and the Board and the Chief have been named as entities representing the Service, out of an abundance of caution, and are not named in their individual capacities. The applicant referred to a decision of the Tribunal, Stephenson v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2371.
8It is not apparent to me that the Stephenson decision is relevant here. In this case, in contrast to Stephenson, there is an entity, the Board, that has received the Application, albeit presumably through the Association, has accepted responsibility as the employer and has responded to the Application on the merits. On this basis, the Tribunal has treated the Board as the respondent to the Application.
9The applicant wishes to proceed against the Service, notwithstanding the fact that the Board has responded to the Application and accepted responsibility as the employer, but the Service has not been given notice of the Application.
10In these circumstances, I see no basis to change the name of the respondent in the style of cause.
11The Request to amend the Application to add the particulars provided with the Request is granted. The respondent has 3 weeks from the date of this Interim Decision to provide an amended Response, following which the applicant may have 2 weeks to provide a Reply.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 7^th^ day of March, 2011.
"Signed by"
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair