HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sylvie Gareau
Applicant
-and-
MGB Ventures Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Gareau v. MGB Ventures Inc.
INTRODUCTION
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). By way of remedy, the applicant seeks financial compensation.
2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) in which they request the removal of the individual respondent as a party to this Application and they request that the name of the corporate respondent be corrected to MGB Ventures Inc. which they state is the correct name of the franchisee of the restaurant where the applicant worked.
BACKGROUND
3The applicant was employed at the corporate respondent’s restaurant when she learned she was pregnant. The individual respondent was her manager. The applicant alleges that she told her manager of her pregnancy and subsequently the manager fired her due to her pregnancy, in a message to her on Facebook.
4The respondents deny having discriminated against the applicant and assert that her employment was terminated, in a telephone call, for absenteeism and performance related reasons.
Request to Remove the Individual 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 para. 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 Tribunal further expanded on these principles in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at para. 5:
Applying these principles to the Tribunal’s power to remove a personal respondent from a proceeding, the following non-exhaustive list of factors may be helpful in assessing whether a personal respondent should be removed:
Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?
Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who sought to be removed?
Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?
Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?
Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?
In considering whether any compelling reason exists to continue the proceeding against a personal respondent, one way of approaching this question is to ask whether it is necessary to involve this person as a party in order to have a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the complaint.
7The respondents submit that the corporate respondent is also named in the Application and assumes all liability for any breach of the Code found in respect of this Application. The