Wallis v. Sheridan College, 2014 HRTO 1611

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Maria Wallis

Applicant

-and-

Sheridan College

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: October 31, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1611
Indexed as: Wallis v. Sheridan College

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Maria Wallis, Applicant Self-represented

Sheridan College and Kathryn Karcz, Respondents Patty Murray, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is removing the personal respondent as a respondent to this Application, which alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). Reprisal is also alleged.

2The applicant was employed as a probationary faculty member by the respondent college from August of 2011 until her employment was terminated at the end of January, 2013. The applicant named Kathryn Karcz as a personal respondent. Ms. Karcz was Associate Dean in the Faculty of Applied Health and Community Studies for part of the period of the applicant's employment.

3The applicant alleges that throughout the period of her employment she was treated in a manner that was racist and that the decision to terminate her employment was also racist. The respondent's position is that the applicant was treated fairly but that her performance was consistently below acceptable standards for a faculty member and that this is why her employment was ended.

4When she was Associate Dean the personal respondent was responsible for overseeing the applicant's performance. This included evaluating her performance, reviewing student evaluations of the applicant's teaching and overseeing the applicant's adherence to college policies with respect to grading and the use of evaluation systems. The personal respondent was not involved in the applicant's termination of employment as she had moved on to a different position in the college by that time. The personal respondent's successor was involved in the termination of employment.

5The respondents request that the personal respondent be removed as a respondent to this Application. They argue that the college assumes liability for any of the personal respondent's acts or omissions, that there is no issue as to the college's ability to fulfil any remedy the Tribunal might order if the applicant succeeds, and that there is no prejudice to the applicant in removing the personal respondent. The applicant opposes this request because she is of the view that the individuals involved in discriminatory conduct need to be held to account on a personal level, and this is why the personal respondent should not be removed from this Application.

6In my view it is appropriate to remove the personal respondent from this Application. Having reviewed the pleadings, I conclude that none of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent meets the threshold of compelling reasons cited in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 that would justify maintaining her as a respondent. Further, it is clear that the college is vicariously liable for the conduct of the personal respondent and has the capacity to implement any remedy the Tribunal might order.

7If this Application proceeds to a hearing, the personal respondent will most likely give evidence. If she does, then the applicant will have an opportunity to question her as to what she did and why she did it.

order

8The request to remove Kathryn Karcz as a respondent is granted and the style of cause is amended accordingly.