Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Haashim Kamena Applicant
-and-
Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc. Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: March 8, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 355 Indexed as: Kamena v. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Haashim Kamena, Applicant Self-represented
Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc., Rosemary Riina, Respondents Thomas W. Agnew, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Interim Decision in respect of 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 employment because of creed.
2The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”), asking that the individual respondent be removed as a respondent to this Application. The applicant did not respond to the Request, and the time for doing so has elapsed.
3Citing Tribunal decisions in Makkar v. Scarborough (City) (1987), 1987 CanLII 8552 (ON HRT), 8 CHRR D/4280 (Ont. Bd. Inq.), Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14, and Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, the respondent submits that “an individual should not be named as a respondent to a human rights complaint unless there is a real need to include the individual as a party”.
4As noted in Madhani v. Sears Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 290, I do not agree that there must be a compelling reason to name or to retain an individual as a respondent to an Application. As noted in Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Farris, 2012 ONSC 3876 (Div. Ct.), at para 34, “the fact that a corporate respondent may also be jointly and severally liable for the conduct of employees is not a basis to insulate the employees from personal liability”.
5In the Madhani decision, I pointed out that the decision as to whether to remove a respondent from an application can be complicated and may be affected by the stage to which the Application has progressed, because the stage at which the Application is, has implications for how much information relevant to the parties is available to the Tribunal. I suggested a restatement of some of the factors for consideration noted in Persaud and included some other factors for consideration:
Have allegations been made against this respondent that could support a finding that the respondent violated the Code?
Is there a juridical reason to remove this respondent from the proceeding?
Is there a procedural or remedial provision of the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1