HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Debra Jo-Ann Morrison
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Speed Skating Association
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Date: April 13, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 711
Indexed as: Morrison v. Ontario Speed Skating Association
[1] This Application was filed under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking the removal of four personal respondents named in the human rights complaint underlying the Applications.
[2] The Tribunal has generally considered the following factors as set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, [2008 HRTO 31](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/31), at paras [4-5](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/31) in deciding whether to remove personal respondents from a proceeding:
Is there a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?
Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who [is] sought to be removed?
Is there any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?
Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?
Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?
In considering whether any compelling reason exists to continue the proceeding against a personal respondent, one way of approaching this question is to ask whether it is necessary to involve this person as a party in order to have a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the complaint.
[3] The applicant did not file a response to the Request for Order.
[4] The corporate respondent has accepted that the named respondents were acting in the course of their positions as former Board Members and there is no issue as the corporate respondent’s ability to provide a remedy. In these circumstances, I do not see a compelling reason to continue this Application against the personal respondents and they are removed from the style of cause.
Dated at Toronto, this 13^th^ day of April, 2011.
“Signed by”
Kaye Joachim
Member