HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Melika Rahimi Applicant

-and-

Sales Dynamic Inc. and Lorne Ordel Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: January 12, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 88 Indexed as: Rahimi v. Sales Dynamic

1The applicant filed this Application on December 13, 2009, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application originally named Lorne Ordel as the only respondent (“individual respondent”).

2The individual respondent filed a Response on April 7, 2010. The Response and accompanying materials indicate that the individual respondent is the President of Sales Dynamic Inc. and that the applicant was employed by this company.

3On December 10, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”). The RFOP requests that Sales Dynamic Inc. be added to the Application as the corporate respondent. The RFOP indicates that Sales Dynamic Inc. is owned by the individual respondent. The RFOP submits that the Application was filed by the applicant when she was unrepresented and, as such, was unfamiliar with proper application process for naming parties.

4The individual respondent did not file a Response to the RFOP and the timeline for doing so has elapsed.

5Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may add a party. Tribunal jurisprudence has articulated the following factors with respect to adding a respondent:

(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, 2009 HRTO 1513

6Based on the foregoing and without deciding the issues, it appears that it would be fair to add the proposed corporate respondent. The applicant alleges that her employment with Sales Dynamic Inc. was terminated by the individual respondent on the basis of prohibited grounds under the Code. Having reviewed the Application, and in the absence of any response to the RFOP, I am satisfied that there are facts alleged by the applicant, which if proven and absent some defence by the proposed corporate respondent, could lead to a finding that the proposed corporate respondent is responsible for the alleged violation of the applicant’s rights. The applicant’s request to add Sales Dynamic Inc. is granted.

7Accordingly, the style of cause is amended to add Sales Dynamic Inc. as the corporate respondent.

8I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of January, 2011.