Mina Bapir Rasoul v. Nacer Allahoum and La Casbah Restaurant, 2013 HRTO 1344

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mina Bapir Rasoul Applicant

-and-

Nacer Allahoum and La Casbah Restaurant Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: August 2, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1344 Indexed as: Bapir Rasoul v. Allahoum

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mina Bapir Rasoul, Applicant Self-represented

Nacer Allahoum, Respondent No Submissions

La Casbah Restaurant, Respondent No Submissions

Introduction

1The applicant filed this Application on July 11, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment. The Application was originally filed as against only the personal respondent, the owner of the restaurant where the applicant worked.

2The applicant alleges that she was denied time off work due to stress and that she was ultimately fired for this reason.

3The personal respondent filed a Form 2 Response, denying discrimination and stating that the applicant resigned from her work at the restaurant.

4On March 20, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) in this matter, noting that it was not clear on the face of the Application the basis on which the applicant alleges Ms. Allahoum violated the Code. It directed the applicant to deliver to the respondent, and file with the Tribunal, a letter explaining why she states that Ms. Allahoum violated the Code. It also advised that if she seeks to name a corporation as a respondent, she must prepare a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to add a respondent, deliver a copy to the corporation and to the personal respondent, and file it with the Tribunal.

5The applicant has now provided a letter explaining that it is her allegation that as owner of the restaurant, Ms. Allahoum played a central role in denying her accommodation and she also alleged that Ms. Allahoum terminated her employment at the restaurant.

6The applicant has also now filed an RFOP seeking to add the restaurant as a respondent to this Application. She states that her reason for seeking to add the restaurant is that it was her “corporate employer”. She has provided a Statement of Delivery of the RFOP, indicating that she mailed it to both the personal respondent and to the restaurant she proposes to name as a respondent.

7The Tribunal has not received submissions from the proposed corporate respondent nor has it received submissions from the personal respondent in response to the RFOP, and the timeline for their response has now passed.

ANALYSIS & DECISION

8For the reasons that follow and without deciding the factual issues, I find that the request to amend the Application by adding the restaurant as a respondent should be granted.

9The Tribunal held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513, that when determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:

(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?

(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?

(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

10Based on the foregoing and without deciding the issues, it appears that it would be fair to add the proposed corporate respondent, and the style of cause is so amended. The applicant has alleged that the personal respondent made the decision not to accommodate her and to terminate her employment. I am satisfied that there are facts which, if proven and subject to the defence by the proposed corporate respondent, could lead to a finding that the corporate respondent is responsible for the alleged violation of the applicant’s rights. There are no submissions before me to indicate that the corporate respondent would suffer prejudice in being named as a respondent to this Application. Accordingly, the applicant’s request is granted.

ORDER

11The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The corporate respondent, La Casbah Restaurant, is added to the Application and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

12I am not seized.