Bala v. Commercial Spring and Tool Company Limited, 2013 HRTO 379

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sathish Rao Bala

Applicant

-and-

Commercial Spring and Tool Company Limited

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: March 6, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 379

Indexed as: Bala v. Commercial Spring and Tool Company Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sathish Rao Bala, Applicant

Anita Taneja, 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 employment because of age.

2The Application was filed January 26, 2012 and indicates that the date of the last event complained of was February 11, 2011.

3In his Application, the applicant alleges that C. Gliddon and Gurmail Gill, employees of the respondent corporation, were "looking after the Heat treat operation", an area of the respondent corporation where the applicant worked. He alleged that Mr. Gill asked him how old he was and when he would be retiring and alleged that Mr. Gill and Mr. Gliddon assigned him work which was not suited to his skill set. He alleges that he was inappropriately disciplined and that there was a poisoned work environment. He ultimately resigned from his employment at the respondent corporation on February 14, 2011.

4On June 25, 2012, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, advising that a hearing was scheduled for March 6, 2013.

5On February 15, 2013, counsel for the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP), requesting to add Mr. Gliddon and Mr. Gill as personal respondents and requesting to amend the remedies sought. The reason provided for adding personal respondents was "these two individuals were directly harassing the applicant due to his age". The reason stated for amending the remedy sought was "the Applicant had omitted to claim these in the original Application". Counsel for the applicant also indicated that the applicant was not "properly represented by a Lawyer [sic]" when filing the Application and therefore "inadvertently omitted these legally justifiable requests".

6The Tribunal has considered numerous factors in addressing the question of adding respondents. It has considered whether there are allegations made in the application which could support a finding that the respondent violated the Code, whether the proposed respondent has demonstrated that its addition as a party at this stage in the process would impair its ability to make full answer and defence to the allegations and it has found that other factors may be relevant (see for example Smyth v. Toronto Police Services 2009 HRTO 1513 ("Smyth")). Additionally, in 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'. The Tribunal also found that another significant factor to consider is the effect on the hearing process of adding the proposed respondent. The Tribunal has refused to add a proposed respondent where it would result in delaying the hearing process and would not advance the remedial purposes of the Code and also where the request was not made in a timely manner and would result in delay and prejudice to the hearing process (see for example Smyth, Haynes v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board 2008 HRTO 26 and Sinclair v. London (City) 2008 HRTO 11).

7In this case, the RFOP seeking to add personal respondents arrived more than two years after the last event complained of in the Application. It arrived more than seven months after the Confirmation of Notice of Hearing and less than one month prior to the date scheduled for the hearing. Permitting the applicant to add these personal respondents would require an adjournment of the scheduled hearing date in order to allow time for the pleadings to be served on the personal respondents and in order to allow them time to respond. It is likely that the Tribunal would be required to rule on the timeliness of these allegations as against the proposed personal respondents. Adding the proposed personal respondents would result in delaying the hearing process and I am not persuaded that it would advance the remedial purposes of the Code.

8The proposed personal respondents were employees of the respondent corporation and it would appear that the applicant's allegations relate to activities those individuals undertook in the course of their employment with the respondent corporation. Even if I were to assume that there are allegations which could support a finding against the proposed respondents, I am aware of no compelling juridical reason for adding these individuals as personal respondents to this Application. There does not appear to be any question regarding the corporate respondent's liability for their actions should a violation of the Code be found to have occurred.

9Further, this is not a case where information in the respondent's possession has only come to light during the Tribunal's disclosure process, but rather, the allegations relate to information within the applicant's possession from the time he filed the Application.

10For all these reasons, the applicant's request to add the proposed personal respondents is dismissed.

11The applicant's request to amend the remedies sought will be addressed at the hearing.

12I am not seized.