<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
B E T W E E N:
Neallos Wedemire
Applicant
-and-
Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc.
Respondent
______________________________________________________________________
INTERIM decision
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Date: May 14, 2013
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Citation: 2013 HRTO 810
<!--mc:cls:cover-line-->
Indexed as: Wedemire v. Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc.
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc., Respondent, and McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd.
Donna Polgar, Counsel
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] The applicant filed this Application on August 8, 2012, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of race and colour.
[2] The respondent filed a Response on September 14, 2012, denying the allegations. The Response notes that the Application identifies the corporate franchisor McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd. as the respondent when, in fact, the restaurant where the alleged events occurred is a franchise owned and operated by Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc., the entity which should be substituted as the proper respondent in this matter.
[3] On April 12, 2013 the Tribunal issued Interim Decision [2013 HRTO 613](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2013/613) addressing certain amendments to the respondent’s Response. In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal stated that there appeared to be an outstanding issue with respect to the proper identity of the respondent party. The Tribunal noted that Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc., as the franchisee of the restaurant that is the subject of this Application, may be the proper respondent.
[4] The Tribunal directed counsel for the respondent to 1.) provide the full contact information for Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc., 2.) confirm that copies of the Tribunal’s and parties’ materials have been provided to Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc. and 3.) advise whether counsel represents Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc. and if not, the name and contact information of the representative. The applicant was also required to write to the Tribunal stating whether or not he consented substituting Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc. for McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd. as the respondent party.
[5] Counsel for the respondent has confirmed that she represents Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc. and has provided its contact information. Counsel also confirms that the respondent consents to removing McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd. and substituting Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc. as the respondent party to the Application.
[6] The applicant did not file submissions as directed by the Interim Decision.
[7] Pursuant to Rule 1.7(b) and (c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal has the power to “add or remove a party” and “allow any filing to be amended”.
[8] In these circumstances, given the respondent’s consent and applicant’s failure to take any position regarding this matter, the Tribunal removes McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd. and substitutes Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc. as the respondent party to the Application. The style of cause is amended accordingly.
[9] I am not seized.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 14^th^ day of May, 2013.
“Signed by”
_______________________________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel