HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Louis Gillespie
Applicant
-and-
Daniel Sriskanthan and The Keg Steakhouse and Bar
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Gillespie v. The Keg Steakhouse and Bar
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Louis Gillespie, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application filed on January 21, 2014 names a former work colleague of the applicant, Daniel Sriskanthan, as a personal respondent to the Application.
2The Tribunal has attempted without success to deliver the Application to the personal respondent on a number of occasions. The applicant has provided the personal respondent’s work address and the Application is being returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable.
3On July 21, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to add The Keg Steakhouse and Bar (the “Keg”) as a respondent to the Application. She also seeks the disclosure of the personal respondent’s contact information.
4The Keg has not responded to the applicant’s Request and the time for doing so has passed.
Decision
5The Tribunal, on its own initiative, or at the request of a party, may add parties to the hearing if it appears that they may have infringed a right under the Code. The Tribunal may add a party in order to provide for “fair, just and expeditious” resolution of an application, under s. 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. As noted in Marchese v. Fortinos, 2009 HRTO 25, the Tribunal will not add a proposed party in a perfunctory manner or as a matter of formality. Rather, it will decide whether it is appropriate to do so based on the parties’ materials and arguments. A recent statement of relevant considerations is set out in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513 at para. 12:
(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
6On a review of the written material filed in this matter the Keg could as the applicant’s former employer, depending on the circumstances, be the subject of findings or a Tribunal order. As such it is appropriate to add the Keg as a respondent to the Application. I also note that the Request to add a party is also unopposed.
7I also find that the Keg must provide the last known address of the personal respondent so that the Tribunal can deliver the Application.
Order
8The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s Request for an Order during Proceedings is granted;
b. The Keg Steakhouse and Bar is added as a respondent to the Application and the style of cause shall be immediately amended to reflect this change. The Registrar will deliver to the Keg the documents in the Tribunal’s file which have not already been delivered to the Keg.
c. Within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision the Keg Steakhouse and Bar must file a Response to the Application; and
d. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision the Keg Steakhouse and Bar must write to the Tribunal and provide the last known address, e-mail and telephone number for the personal respondent Daniel Sriskanthan.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of August, 2014.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair