R.N. v. Cadillac Fairview, 2011 HRTO 474

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

R.N. by her next friend M.E.

Applicant

-and-

Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited and Tobmar Investments Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: March 8, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 474

Indexed as: R.N. v. Cadillac Fairview

BACKGROUND

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings asking that the Tribunal add Tobmar Investments Inc. (“Tobmar”) as a respondent to the Application.

2Tobmar is a Gateway Newsstand store that operates in the mall owned by the respondent, Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited (“Cadillac Fairview”). The applicant alleges that Tobmar is also responsible for discrimination in services on the basis of disability, because Tobmar ordered her to leave its store for the reason that her wheelchair was too big.

3The applicant explains that she did not initially name Tobmar as a respondent because she did not know the name of the corporation which owned the store. She only learned this information when the Tribunal ordered Cadillac Fairview to provide this information to her. See 2011 HRTO 55.

4A copy of the Request was delivered to Tobmar but it has not responded. The date for doing so has now past.

5When considering a request to add a respondent the Tribunal considers the following factors:

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?

See Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513; Greenhorn v. 621509 Ontario Inc. (Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep), 2006 HRTO 22; and Smith v. Peel Regional Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 742.

6While the second aspect of the test is not relevant, I am satisfied that the allegations, if true, could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code, and that Tobmar could, depending on the circumstances, be the subject of findings or a Tribunal order. I further find that the Request was made as soon as the applicant was provided with information to properly identify the proposed respondent and that there would be no unfairness to adding Tobmar as a respondent at this early stage of the proceeding. In all the circumstances I therefore order Tobmar added as a respondent to this Application.

6It does not appear that the applicant delivered to Tobmar a copy of either the Application or Cadillac Fairview’s Response. The Tribunal will deliver the Application, Notice of Application and Cadillac Fairview’s Response to Tobmar with this Interim Decision. Tobmar must deliver its Response to the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.

7I am not seized of this matter.