HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Laura Schleihauf
Applicant
-and-
Bluewater Health
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Schleihauf v. Bluewater Health
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Laura Schleihauf, Applicant
Tyler J. Coleman, Counsel
Bluewater Health, Respondent
Aida Gatfield, Counsel
BACKGROUND
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 discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.
2In their Response, the respondents requested that all the personal respondents be removed as parties to the Application and they provided submissions supporting that position.
3The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision (2012 HRTO 492) on March 8, 2012, requesting submissions from the applicant regarding the respondents' request.
4The applicant responded to the Interim Decision on March 19, 2012, advising that she had no objection to the request to remove the personal Respondents from the Application.
ANALYSIS
5Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal's Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, the Tribunal set out the general principles that apply to this issue:
...the following non-exhaustive list of factors may be helpful in assessing whether a personal respondent should be removed:
Is there is 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 sought to be removed?
Is there is 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.
6The respondents argue that all five parts of the Persaud test have been met and therefore the personal respondents should be removed as parties to the Application.
7I agree with the respondents. There is a corporate respondent which is alleged to be liable for the same conduct as the personal respondents. There is no issue raised as to the corporate respondent's liability for the conduct of the personal respondents. There is also no issue raised as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to the Application or to remedy the alleged Code infringement. There are no reasons advanced as to why the personal respondents should remain part of the Application. Nor is there any argument made with regard to any prejudice to the applicant if the personal respondents are removed. In sum, it appears that a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the complaint can be obtained without the personal respondents remaining as parties to the Application.
8Applying all the factors set out in Persaud, and given that the applicant does not object to the request, I find that the personal respondents should be removed as parties to the Application.
ORDER
9The personal respondents are removed as parties.
10A three day hearing will be scheduled in Sarnia, Ontario, to determine the Application on its merits.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of July, 2012.
"Signed by"
Alan G. Smith
Member