Preece v. Sobeys Capital Incorporated, 2013 HRTO 1050

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kristina Preece Applicant

-and-

Sobeys Capital Incorporated Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: June 12, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1050 Indexed as: Preece v. Sobeys Capital Incorporated

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kristina Preece, Applicant Self-represented

Sobeys Inc. and Paul Ormsby, Respondents Sara Graves, Counsel

1The applicant alleges that her employment was terminated in whole or in part because she disclosed that she was pregnant.

2The parties have agreed to mediation. The respondent however asks that the Tribunal deal with its request that Paul Ormsby, who is named as a respondent it the Application, be removed as a respondent. The respondent asks that this be dealt with prior to mediation. The request was raised in the Response to the Application. In her Reply the applicant opposed removal of Mr. Ormsby as a respondent.

3The factors typically considered by the Tribunal when determining a request to remove a personal respondent are as follows:

1. Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?

2. 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?

3. Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?

4. 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?

5. Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?

Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31

4In this case, Mr. Ormsby was the person who informed the applicant that her employment was terminated. It appears that he did this in the course of his duties as a Vice-President of the respondent’s business. The applicant submits that Mr. Ormsby should remain as a respondent because the evidence may show that he acted in bad faith and personally discriminated against the applicant.

5The respondent Sobeys Inc. states that it will assume any liability that might be found to attach to Mr. Ormsby in regards to the decision to terminate the applicant’s employment.

6While the applicant is concerned about Mr. Ormsby’s involvement, it appears that any decision he made was made in the course of doing his job. No specific remedy is asked for in respect of Mr. Ormsby.

7In these circumstances, I conclude that it is appropriate to remove Mr. Ormsby as a respondent to this Application.

8The respondent has advised that it is not available to attend the mediation scheduled for July 19, 2013. The respondent is directed to contact the applicant to try to agree on dates that are mutually agreeable and to advise the Tribunal accordingly.