Walcott v. Innovative Management Solutions, 2013 HRTO 1961

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Victor Walcott

Applicant

-and-

Innovative Management Solutions (IMS Group), Michael Grady and Brandon Woolford

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: November 27, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1961 Indexed as: Walcott v. Innovative Management Solutions

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Victor Walcott, Applicant

Kenneth Hughes, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging that the respondents reprised against the applicant for claiming or enforcing his rights under the Code and/or for instituting proceedings under the Code.

2In or around April 2013, the applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal, alleging that the corporate respondent and the personal respondent Michael Grady infringed his rights under the Code (Tribunal file 2013-14076-I). On August 9, 2013, the applicant's employment with the corporate respondent was terminated. The applicant contends that this was a reprisal against him because he had filed a human rights Application against the respondents in Tribunal file 2013-14076-I. The respondents deny the allegations. They maintain that the applicant's employment was terminated because of his work performance.

Request to add personal respondent

3This Interim Decision addresses the applicant's Request for an Order during Proceedings, seeking to add Brandon Woolford as a personal respondent to the Application.

4The respondents named in the original Application were given an opportunity to respond to the Request, as was Mr. Woolford. However, none of them has responded to the Request and the time for doing so has now passed.

5The applicant alleges that, shortly after he was terminated, he went to the respondents' workplace to collect his things. While he was there, the applicant alleges that the president of the corporate respondent, personal respondent Michael Grady, said to him, "I have a new man in your chair now. How dare you take me to the Human Rights Board," or words to that effect. The applicant alleges that Brandon Woolford, who was also present for this conversation, told the applicant, "Go look for a job. We don't want people like you around here."

6In determining whether a proposed respondent ought to be added as a party to an Application, the central issue is whether there are allegations that if true, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent infringed the applicant's rights under the Code. In addition, the Tribunal will consider whether the proposed respondent would suffer real and substantial prejudice that could not be alleviated or cured by the Tribunal if it were added as a party to the proceeding: Greenhorn v. 621509 Ontario Inc. (Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep), 2006 HRTO 22; Pieters v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario (Store 568), 2007 HRTO 22; Marchese v. Fortinos, 2009 HRTO 25; Smith v. Peel Regional Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 742; Pitter v. ICC Property Management, 2010 HRTO 1022. In addition, where the proposed respondent is an individual, and there is a corporate respondent that would be liable for the personal respondent's actions pursuant to s.46.3 of the Code, the Tribunal will consider whether there is a compelling reason to include the proposed personal respondent as a party to the proceeding: Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513.

7In this case, I am satisfied that there are facts alleged by the applicant that, if proven, could lead to a finding that Brandon Woolford infringed the applicant's rights under the Code. Moreover, given that the allegations against Mr. Woolford have been raised well within the one-year time limit in s.34(1) of the Code and the hearing in this matter has not yet been scheduled, I cannot see how the proposed respondent would suffer any prejudice if added as a party to the proceedings. Nor has anyone identified any prejudice that might result if the proposed respondent were added as a party to the proceeding. Finally, insofar as Mr. Woolford's individual conduct is at issue in this case, I am satisfied that there is a compelling reason to add him as a personal respondent.

8Accordingly, I find it appropriate to grant the applicant's Request to have Brandon Woolford added as a personal respondent.

directions

9The applicant's Request to have Brandon Woolford added as a personal respondent is granted and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

10Within seven (7) days of the date of this decision, the applicant is directed to provide the Tribunal with the contact information for Brandon Woolford so that the Tribunal can deliver a copy of the Application to Mr. Woolford and direct him to file a Response to it.

11I am not seized.