McCarthy v. Primecorp Commercial Realty Inc., 2012 HRTO 1276

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leonard H. McCarthy Applicant

-and-

Primecorp Commercial Realty Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: June 27, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1276 Indexed as: McCarthy v. Primecorp Commercial Realty Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Leonard H. McCarthy, Applicant Self-represented

Primecorp Commercial Realty Inc., Respondent Kecia Podetz, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the applicant experienced discrimination on the basis of age and disability when he was terminated from his employment.

2The respondent has filed a Request for Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking the removal of four individuals who were named as respondents in the Application.

3The respondent argues that the circumstances of this case fall within the requirements set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31:

a. There is an organizational respondent named in the Application which is alleged to have discriminated against the applicant;

b. The respondent admits that the organizational respondent would be vicariously liable for the actions of any of the named individuals – at all material times the individuals were officers of the organizational respondent and any actions or decisions taken on their part were done in their capacity as officers;

c. The respondent admits that the organizational respondent has the ability to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringements;

d. The conduct of the individuals is not central to the allegations set out in the Application and there is no compelling reason to proceed against anyone in their personal capacity.

4The applicant filed a Form 11 in response to the Request where he indicates in point form that he agrees to “remove two personal respondents” but to retain two senior members of the corporation as respondents. The applicant does not provide any explanation for his submission apart from the line “following establish case law”.

5I have determined that it is appropriate to remove the individually named respondents from the Application.

6Accordingly, the Application will not proceed against the four individuals named by the applicant and the style of cause of all future communications issued by the Tribunal and the parties will be amended to reflect this Interim Decision.