HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Debra Lalonde-MacDonald
Applicant
-and-
Hockley Valley Resort Limited and Deepak Bathia
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Lalonde-MacDonald v. Hockley Valley Resort Limited
APPEARANCES
Debra Ann Lalonde-MacDonald, Applicant
Mindy Noble, Counsel
Hockley Valley Resort Limited, Respondent
Bernie Romano, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the issue of whether it is appropriate to remove the personal respondents named in the Application. It also addresses next steps with respect to this Application.
Removal of Personal Respondents
2In her Application, the applicant alleged discrimination because of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin and ancestry contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). She named as respondents her employer, Hockley Valley Resort Limited. She also named the following individuals as personal respondents: John Paul Adamo, Nancy Adamo, Julianno Ballisimo, Deepak Bathia, Tony Beltrano and Tracey Hoddinott. All the named personal respondents were members of the corporate respondent’s management team.
3By Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated August 24, 2012, the Tribunal advised the applicant of its intent to dismiss the Application as against the six named personal respondents. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s narrative in her Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by these individuals. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how each of the named individuals was alleged to have breached the Code. By e-mail dated November 17, 2012, the applicant advised that she agreed to remove John Paul Adamo, Tracey Hoddinott, and Deepak Bathia as personal respondents but that she wished to proceed against the other three personal respondents.
4In a teleconference on October 21, 2013, the applicant confirmed that she was prepared to remove all personal respondents from her Application except for Deepak Bathia.
5On consent of the applicant, all personal respondents except for Deepak Bathia are removed from the Application. The Tribunal will not remove Mr. Bathia as a respondent at this time. If this Application proceeds to a hearing on the merits, the Tribunal will direct the parties to provide full submissions on the issue of whether Mr. Bathia is appropriately named as a personal respondent having regard to the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at paras. 4-5.
Mediation
6The Tribunal held a conference call on October 21, 2013 to address various production requests made by the applicant. During the call, the applicant’s counsel indicated that the applicant would be willing to participate in a mediation in this matter. The applicant had previously declined to participate in a mediation that was scheduled for May 15, 2013.
7Following the call, the corporate respondent’s counsel confirmed that his client remained willing to participate in a mediation.
8As the applicant and the corporate respondent have agreed to mediation, I find that the appropriate next step is for the Tribunal to schedule a mediation in this matter.
order
9For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders:
a. All personal respondents except for Mr. Bathia are removed from the Application. The style of cause shall be amended accordingly.
b. The Registrar shall schedule a half-day mediation in this matter.
c. The Tribunal will address the applicant’s production requests and the issue of whether Mr. Bathia is appropriately named as a respondent only if this Application proceeds to a hearing on the merits.
d. The applicant is directed to provide the Tribunal with contact information for Mr. Bathia within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision so that the Tribunal can provide him with notice of the mediation.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of October, 2013.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair