Susan Borenstein v. Neopost Canada, 2012 HRTO 1596

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Susan Borenstein

Applicant

-and-

Neopost Canada

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: August 21, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1596

Indexed as: Borenstein v. Neopost Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Susan Borenstein, Applicant

Self-represented

Neopost Canada, Respondent

Monique Moreau-Gray, Representative

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request that Suzanne Weide be added as a party to the Application as a personal respondent.

2The Application in this matter was 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 when the applicant was dismissed from her employment with the respondent. The Application identifies Ms. Weide as the applicant’s supervisor at the time of the events giving rise to the Application.

3The Tribunal has expressed concern about the unnecessary naming of personal respondents in Applications where there is an organizational or corporate respondent who is also liable for the alleged infringement of the applicant’s rights and is in a position to satisfy any remedies ordered in the case. As stated in Sigrist and Carson v. London District School Board, 2008 HRTO 14, at para. 42:

The unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Code, a corporation is deemed to be liable for “any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent”. Where there is no issue as to the ability of a corporate respondent to respond to or remedy an alleged Code infringement and no issue raised as to a corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the actions of an individual who is sought to be added as a personal respondent, then in my view the individual ought not be added as a personal respondent in the absence of some compelling juridical reason. A compelling juridical reason may exist, for example, where it is the individual conduct of a proposed personal respondent that is a central issue as opposed to actions which are more in the nature of following organizational practices or policies or where the nature of the alleged conduct of a proposed personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found.

4In my view, the applicant’s submissions do not establish any basis for adding Ms. Weide to the Application as an individual respondent. Neopost Canada is the corporate respondent to this Application and there is no suggestion that it could not implement any remedy that may be ordered in the case. The applicant’s submissions regarding the proposed individual respondent provide no basis for concluding that her conduct is a central issue to the dispute or that there is any compelling juridical reason to add the proposed respondent as a party to the Application.

5The Request for Order is denied.