William Chrysler v. Pizza Nova, 2014 HRTO 1102

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Chrysler

Applicant

-and-

Pizza Nova, Jane Doe, Toronto Transit Commission and Jane Doe 2

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 25, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1102

Indexed as: Chrysler v. Pizza Nova

APPEARANCES

William Chrysler, Applicant

Nicole Simes, Counsel

Pizza Nova, Respondent

Donna Polgar, Counsel

Toronto Transit Commission, Respondent

Marni Tolensky, Counsel

1The applicant filed his Application, in which he named two organizational respondents and two individual respondents. He alleges that he approached the two individual respondents separately, seeking assistance and they both refused to assist him for what he alleges are discriminatory reasons. He does not know the names of the individuals, and for that reason, identified them in his Application as Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2 respectively.

2The Application was filed on May 20, 2014. At the same time, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking for an order directing the respective organizational respondents to provide the names of the employees in question, and also an order substituting the names of the individuals in the style of cause. The organizational respondents both provided Responses opposing the applicant’s Request.

3The respondent, Pizza Nova, opposes the Request on the basis that the applicant has mistakenly stated that Jane Doe was a manager of the store, when, in fact, she was simply a cleaning lady, with minimal knowledge of English. It also states that she no longer works for Pizza Nova and Pizza Nova does not know her whereabouts.

4At this stage, it is premature to be making assessments of whether the individual respondent is properly named. An applicant has the right to name individuals at the time he or she files his/her application, subject to the Tribunal’s discretion to subsequently remove them if they are not properly named. Moreover, Pizza Nova is asking the applicant to accept its assertion that this person had language barriers and no authority to speak on behalf of Pizza Nova.

5The fact that Pizza Nova asserts that it is not aware of Jane Doe’s whereabouts is more problematic. However, it has not stated that it had no contact information for this former employee, and it is directed to provide to the applicant’s counsel that information concerning this individual which it has, however out-of-date it might be. It is also directed to provide the identity of this individual.

6The Toronto Transit Commission (“TTC”) similarly has made extensive argument about why Jane Doe 2 is not properly a respondent. For the same reason as set out above, the Tribunal finds that this argument is premature and can be revived once the individual has been identified.

order

7The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the organizational respondent, Pizza Nova, will provide the applicant with the identify of, and last known contact information for, Jane Doe;

b. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the organizational respondent, TTC, will provide the applicant with the identify of, and contact information for, Jane Doe 2;

c. If the applicant wishes to name these individuals in his Application, he shall advise the Tribunal of this, at which point the Registrar will amend the style of cause to reflect this information; and

d. If the applicant wishes to withdraw the Application against these individuals, he shall advise the Tribunal of this, at which point the style of cause will be amended to reflect this information.

8The Tribunal will serve the Application on the individual respondents once it is advised of their respective identities and contact information.