VanLieshout v. Weigel Management Inc., 2014 HRTO 1013

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

William VanLieshout Applicant

-and-

Weigel Management Inc. cob Weigel Property and Paul Weigel Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: July 11, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1013 Indexed as: VanLieshout v. Weigel Management Inc.

Written Submissions

William VanLieshout, Applicant

Jennifer Zdriluk, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant's March 31, 2014 Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") requesting the following order:

a. To add Paul Wiegel as a respondent to the Application; and b. To amend the Application to add the social area of "contract".

3The applicant delivered the RFOP to the proposed respondent on June 5, 2014.

4A mediation in this matter is scheduled for October 9, 2014.

Request to Add Personal Respondents

5Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal's Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 at paragraph 42, the Tribunal set out the general principles that apply to this issue:

The unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Code, a corporation is deemed to be liable for "any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent". Where there is no issue as to the ability of a corporate respondent to respond to or remedy an alleged Code infringement and no issue raised as to a corporate respondent's deemed or vicarious liability for the actions of an individual who is sought to be added as a personal respondent, then in my view the individual ought not be added as a personal respondent in the absence of some compelling juridical reason. A compelling juridical reason may exist, for example, where it is the individual conduct of a proposed personal respondent that is a central issue as opposed to actions which are more in the nature of following organizational practices or policies or where the nature of the alleged conduct of a proposed personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found.

6The applicant alleges that the proposed respondent was instrumental in providing instructions to him with respect to his duties at both places he worked and that it was the personal respondent who terminated his employment.

7Neither the proposed respondent nor the corporate respondent provided a substantive response to the RFOP. The corporate respondent advised the Tribunal it would not be accepting service of the RFOP on behalf of the proposed respondent.

8Given the lack of response and the resultant lack of clarity as to the roles played by each of the corporate respondent and proposed respondent in the circumstances surrounding these allegations, I find it appropriate to add the personal respondent as a party.

Request to Add the Area of Contract

9The corporate respondent asserted in the Response that it had only contractual dealings with the applicant and no employment relationship. The applicant now asks that it be allowed to amend the Application to add the social area of "contracts".

10Given the stage of the proceeding, I see no reason to refuse the request.

Order

11The ground of contract is added to the Application

12Paul Weigel is added as a personal respondent and the title of proceedings is amended accordingly.

13Within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision the respondents are directed to advise the Tribunal and the applicant whether the corporate respondent intends to respond to the Application on behalf of the personal respondent. If the corporate respondent does not intend to respond on behalf of the personal respondent, the personal respondent is directed to file a Form 2 Response to the Application with the Tribunal within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

14If the corporate respondent intends to respond on behalf of the personal respondent or wishes to amend its Response to address the contract claim it will deliver an amended Response to the parties and file it with the Tribunal within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

15The applicant may deliver and file a Reply to the personal respondent's Response, if any, in accordance with the Rules. The applicant may deliver and file an amended Reply to the corporate respondent's amended Response, if any, within 14 days of its receipt.