Thompson v. 1552754 Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 225

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joan Thompson

Applicant

-and-

1552754 Ontario Inc. o/a Country Style Donuts,

Donald Park, Jung Gon Park and Joanne (Jung Soon) Park

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 31, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 225

Indexed as: Thompson v. 1552754 Ontario Inc.

1The applicant filed this Application on April 19, 2010, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant named only the organizational respondent in her Application.

2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for the Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) asking to add three principals of the respondent company as individual respondents to this Application. This Request was prompted by the assertion by the three individuals that they were no longer proprietors of the corporate respondent. Although the RFOP was served on the three proposed respondents, they have filed no Response to the RFOP.

3Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 at para. 42, the Tribunal set out the general principles that apply to this issue:

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.

4The applicant submits that on the face of her Application, the conduct of each of these three individuals is a central issue in this matter. Indeed, it would appear from the allegations (which I note the respondents deny) that the respondents were reacting to particular situations rather than following an organizational practice or policy. Moreover, in light of the situation with the change in ownership, there is now an issue with respect to whether the named respondent can respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement.

5For the above reasons, the applicant’s Request to add the individual respondents is granted: Donald Park, Jung Gon Park and Joanne (Jung Soon) Park are added as respondents to this Application and the style of cause amended accordingly.

6I am not seized of this matter.