Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Ashton-Nicola Forrest
Applicant
-and-
The Looks Beauty Salon & Supplies, Samuel Nyarko and Kate Ofori-Nyarko
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Indexed as: Forrest v. The Looks Beauty Salon & Supplies
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ashton-Nicola Forrest, Applicant
Beth Walden, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability.
2The applicant seeks to amend her Application to add a claim for $10,000.00 in monetary compensation for the insult to her dignity, self-respect and feelings and to add Samuel Nyarko and Kate Ofori-Nyarko as respondents to this Application.
3The Request for an Order During Proceedings was made in January, 2013 and delivered to the organisational respondent and Mr. Nyarko on January 28, 2013, but, through oversight, was not delivered to Ms Ofori-Nyarko, until August 19, 2013. The respondents did not respond to the Request.
Analysis and decision
4Rule 1.7(c) gives the Tribunal the power to allow any filing to be amended if it will "provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter". In Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513 at paragraph 12 the Tribunal stated:
When determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:
a. Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
b. 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?
c. Would it be fair in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
5In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14, the Tribunal held at paragraph 42 that where an individual is acting in the course of his or her employment for an organizational respondent, he or she should not be added as a respondent absent a 'compelling juridical reason'.
6As stated in Sigrist and Carson, above, the unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. Pursuant to [section 45(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1