Sabrina Rollick v. 1526597 Ontario Inc. o/a Tim Horton’s Store no. 253 and Kevin Matson, 2014 HRTO 1608

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sabrina Rollick

Applicant

-and-

1526597 Ontario Inc. o/a Tim Horton’s Store no. 253 and Kevin Matson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: October 31, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1608
Indexed as: Rollick v. 1526597 Ontario Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sabrina Rollick, Applicant

Jamie McGinnis, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is adding Kevin Matson as a respondent to this Application, which 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”). Reprisal is also alleged.

2The applicant worked as a cashier for the corporate respondent. Mr. Matson is an officer and director of the corporate respondent, and its owner. He managed the store where the applicant worked. The applicant alleges that she sought accommodation for a non-work related injury and eventually was terminated when the employer refused to accommodate her disability.

3When the applicant filed her Application she only named the corporation as a respondent. The applicant now requests to add Mr. Matson as a respondent. She maintains that Mr. Matson is involved in other litigation, and has been directed by a court to prepare to sell the store that is the corporate respondent’s main, if not sole, asset. She argues that if this happens then there will be no possibility for her to recover any remedy the Tribunal might order if she succeeds in her Application. She further argues that Mr. Matson was the person who refused to accommodate her disability and took the decision to end her employment.

4Neither the corporate respondent nor Mr. Matson have responded to this request.

5The criteria for adding a respondent to an Application are set out in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513 as follows:

(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?

6I find that the criteria for adding Mr. Matson as a respondent have been met. The allegations made by the applicant could support a finding of liability against Mr. Matson, insofar as he oversaw the daily operations of the store, took decisions with respect to the applicant’s request for accommodation and decided to end her employment.

7In addition, if I accept the applicant’s assertion that the corporate respondent’s main asset may be sold (and this has not been contradicted, as there has been no response to this request), then there is a real possibility that the applicant would not be able to recover any remedy the Tribunal might order if the Application is allowed.

8Finally, the Application has not yet reached such an advanced stage that it would cause either the corporate respondent or Mr. Matson difficulty in preparing to defend against the applicant’s allegations.

9Having regard to all of these circumstances, I consider that it would be unfair to refuse the request to add Mr. Matson as a respondent and for the Application to only proceed against a corporate respondent that may have little or no assets. The request is granted.

order

10The request to add Kevin Matson as a respondent is granted and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

11Mr. Matson is directed to file a Response to the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.