Payette v. Robyn Guindon Pharmacy Ltd., 2012 HRTO 292

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alain Payette by his litigation guardian, Bernie Payette

Applicant

-and-

Robyn Guindon Pharmacy Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 292

Indexed as: Payette v. Robyn Guindon Pharmacy Ltd.

1The applicant filed this Application on October 24, 2011 alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

SECTION 45.1

2The respondent filed a Response seeking early dismissal of the Application on the basis that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The applicant initially filed civil action in Small Claims Court, which addressed the same subject matter as his Application. However, at some point, he came to the conclusion that he would rather file an Application with this Tribunal and sought to withdraw his civil action.

3Both parties provided a copy of document entitled Request for Clerk’s Order on Consent asking that the claim be dismissed on consent. This document was signed by the clerk on September 1, 2011. Subsequent to that consent dismissal, the applicant filed this Application.

4Section 45.1 of the Code states:

45.1 The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

5It is clear on the face of this matter that the Small Claims Court did not deal with the substance of the Application. Accordingly, the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 is denied and the Tribunal will continue to process this matter.

CORRECT NAME OF RESPONDENT

6In his Application, the applicant names Shoppers Drug Mart (Cornwall) as the Organization Respondent, and identifies Robyn Guindon as the contact person , whom he states is the owner/operator and pharmacist of the three stores which he alleges discriminated against him.

7The respondent argues that the Application should be dismissed as a nullity because Shoppers Drug Mart is a trade name and not a legal entity. It identifies the correct legal entity as Robyn Guindon Pharmacy Ltd. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to dismiss an Application on that basis, but it will amend the name of the respondent to the correct legal name. The style of cause has been accordingly amended.

8I am not seized of this matter.