HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Brooke Kovacevic
Applicant
-and-
ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise, Cooney Promotions Inc., and Darren Watson
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Date: May 10, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 927
Indexed as: Kovacevic v. ECE Distribution
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Brooke Kovacevic, Applicant ) Janina Fogels, Counsel
[1] The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise should be removed as a respondent from the Application.
[2] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on March 15, 2011, which named ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise as an organization respondent and Darren Watson as an individual respondent.
[3] ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise filed a Response on December 7, 2011, which denied that it was in an employment relationship with the applicant. Rather, it stated, the applicant worked as an independent contractor with Cooney Promotions Inc.
[4] Cooney Promotions Inc. filed a Record of Employment that it issued to the applicant, and a complaint letter that the applicant sent to it following the termination of her employment.
[5] In an Interim Decision, [2012 HRTO 390](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2012/390), the Tribunal ordered that Cooney Promotions Inc. be added as an organization respondent to the Application, and requested written submissions from the parties addressing whether the Application against ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise should be dismissed.
[6] On March 9, 2012, the applicant filed submissions which stated that the Application against ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise should not be dismissed because the applicant had an employment relationship with both Cooney Promotions Inc. and ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise. She stated that she worked for Branded Merchandise which was a division of Cooney Promotions Inc. In support of her submissions, the applicant attached the following documents:
Corporate search records that show that Edward Cooney is the director of both Cooney Promotions Inc. and ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise, and that both companies operate from the same address.
Emails that show that the email signature for the applicant and another employee included both Branded Merchandise and Cooney Promotions Inc., and that the other employee’s signature included a link to the Branded Merchandise website.
The applicant’s business card that showed that she worked for Branded Merchandise.
[7] None of the respondents filed submissions, and the time for doing so has now passed.
[8] Based on the applicant’s uncontradicted submissions, I am satisfied that the applicant had some kind of employment-related relationship with ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise, and that the Application should therefore not be dismissed against ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise at this preliminary stage of the proceeding.
[9] Upon reviewing the file, I have noted that Cooney Promotions Inc. has not complied with the Tribunal’s order to file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal within 35 days of the last Interim Decision. I appreciate that the Response may be the same or similar to the Response already filed by ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise. In the circumstances, within 10 days of this Interim Decision, Cooney Promotions shall either file a letter adopting the Response of ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise, or file a separate Response.
[10] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 10^th^ day of May, 2012.
”signed by”______________
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair