HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Nicole Wales
Applicant
-and-
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Brian Ballantyne and Mark Geene
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Wales v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Nicole Wales, Applicant
Self-represented
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Brian Ballantyne and Mark Geene, Respondents
Melissa Roth and Ted Kovacs, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Order During Proceedings from the applicant asking that the Application be amended to change the remedies sought by the applicant if the Application is successful. It also addresses a Request for Order During Proceedings from the respondents, seeking to have individuals removed as respondents.
The requested remedy change
2In the original Application, the applicant indicated that she was seeking monetary compensation from the corporate respondent and the individuals named as personal respondents. She also sought non-monetary remedies, including training.
3In the Request for Order During Proceedings, the applicant seeks to change the monetary remedy to an amount to be determined by the Vice-chair or member who hears the Application and that any amount determined be paid as a donation to Egale Canada Human Rights Trust. The applicant also wants the non-monetary remedies expanded to include dispute resolution and investigation processes.
4It appears to me that the applicant's requests are not matters that need to be determined at this stage. It does not appear that the nature of the evidence that either party will call at a hearing will be in any way different. I conclude that the issue of the remedies in the event that the Application is successful can be best addressed by the adjudicator who hears and decides the Application.
Removal of personal respondents
5The factors typically considered by the Tribunal when determining a request to remove a personal respondent are:
Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?
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?
Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?
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?
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
6In the original Application, the applicant named four individuals as personal respondents. In her response to the respondent’s Request for Order During Proceedings, she indicates that she does not oppose the removal of two of the named individuals. However, she does not agree to the removal of Brian Ballantyne and Mark Geene because she believes that their conduct is central to the issues in the Application.
7I conclude that the individuals that the applicant does not oppose removal of should be removed as respondents.
8I conclude that at this stage of the proceedings, Brian Ballantyne and Mark Geene should remain as respondents. The issue of whether they should be removed as respondents can be re-visited by the Tribunal adjudicator who hears and decides the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of July, 2013.
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair