Brooks v. Laird Constructors, 2014 HRTO 1056

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kevin Brooks

Applicant

-and-

Laird Constructors and AuRico Gold Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: July 18, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1056

Indexed as: Brooks v. Laird Constructors

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kevin Brooks, Applicant

Lindsay Lawrence, Counsel

Laird Constructors, Respondent

Scott Thompson, Counsel

AuRico Gold Inc., Respondent

Michael Torrance, Counsel

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”). In particular, the applicant alleges that he was denied access to employment because of his use of the nature of medication that he takes for a disability.

2When the Application was first filed on April 28, 2014, it named Laird Constructors (“Laird”) as the respondent. The Application referred to outstanding grievances arising out of the same allegations. On May 20, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because of the grievance proceedings. On May 26, 2014, and before the Application was served on the respondent, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, seeking to add AuRico Gold Inc. (“Aurico”) as a respondent.

3Aurico responded to the applicant's Request for Order During Proceedings concerning the request to add Aurico. Aurico opposes the request, arguing that there was not an employment relationship between it and the applicant. Laird Constructors indicated that it would respond to the applicant’s request by July 2, 2014, but it does not appear to have done so.

4On July 9, 2014, the applicant corresponded with the Tribunal and advised that the grievances have been withdrawn. The correspondence also responds to the Aurico’s submissions about whether it should be added as a party.

DEFERRAL

5According to the information provided by the applicant, there are currently no outstanding grievances so there is no other proceeding to which the Application could be deferred. The Tribunal will accordingly not defer the Application at this time.

REQUEST TO ADD AURICO

6From the chronology, it appears that the request to add Aurico as a respondent is actually an amended Application, now naming both Aurico and Laird as respondents. Since the Application was not served on any respondent before the amended Application was filed, the Tribunal will accept the amended Application.

7From the chronology, it appears to me that a request to add Aurico is not necessary. In effect, the applicant has filed an Application naming two respondents.

8The issue of whether Aurico is properly a respondent appears to be an issue that will likely require the Tribunal to hear evidence about the nature of the relationship between the parties. Since the Laird has not yet been required to file a Response and did not respond to the applicant’s request to add Aurico, it is not clear how Laird views the issue of whether Aurico would have any liability in the event that discrimination is established. For the present therefore, Aurico is a respondent to the Application.

9The Tribunal will now deliver the Application to Laird and Aurico and direct them to file a Response to the Application.