Reaume v. Total Security Management, 2014 HRTO 1620

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Jeffrey Reaume Applicant

-and-

Total Security Management and Securitas Canada Limited Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: November 3, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1620 Indexed as: Reaume v. Total Security Management

Written Submissions

Total Security Management, Respondent Francis Michaud, Representative

Securitas Canada Limited, Respondent Daniel McDonald, Counsel

Garda Canada Security Corporation, Respondent Jean-Francois Carrier, Representative

1This Interim Decision deals with requests to add and remove respondents to this Application. The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The applicant was employed as a security guard by the respondent Total Security Management ("TSM") from September 3, 2010 to March 31, 2013. His job was to provide security services at the worksite of a company that had contracted with TSM for those services. The company decided to switch service providers and contracted with the respondent Securitas Canada Limited ("Securitas") to provide security at the worksite. Once this happened the applicant was no longer employed.

3The applicant alleges that although Securitas offered him a job, it was not one he could accept. He says that Securitas discriminated against him by failing to offer him a job that accommodated him in relation to a disability he has and also in relation to his parental obligations in picking up his child from daycare. He further alleges that TSM laid the groundwork for this discrimination in that, prior to Securitas assuming the contract, his supervisors at TSM convinced Securitas not to hire him because he would request accommodation.

4Securitas has filed a Response denying these allegations.

5Although named by the applicant as a respondent, TSM has not filed a response. Instead, another security company, Garda Canada Security Corporation ("Garda") filed a Response. In its Response Garda states that it acquired TSM in November of 2013 and that it would defend the Application on behalf of TSM. The Response goes on to deny any discrimination.

6Now TSM has filed a request. The request asks that Garda be removed as a respondent. The request explains that the terms of the purchase and sale agreement between Garda and TSM are that Garda would not assume liability for any claims against TSM arising before the date of acquisition. The request also asks that TSM be removed as a respondent because the applicant was not employed by TSM at the time of his termination. TSM says that he was employed by Securitas at that time and that only Securitas should answer for any alleged discrimination against the applicant.

7Not surprisingly, Garda agrees with TSM's position. It appears that Garda's initial decision to file a Response was made without regard to the terms of the purchase and sale agreement. The applicant has not responded to the request.

8Securitas has no knowledge of the terms of the purchase and sale agreement between TSM and Garda. It takes no position on the request to remove Garda as a respondent.

9However, it objects to the removal of TSM as a respondent. Its position is that the applicant's narrative clearly alleges that TSM employees acted in a discriminatory manner by influencing or attempting to influence Securitas' decision in dealing with the applicant's accommodation requests.

10The request to remove Garda as a respondent is granted. No party has taken issue with the position taken by TSM and Garda that the agreement of purchase and sale relieves Garda of any potential liability created by the acts or omissions of TSM prior to the purchase of TSM. In light of the positions of the parties on this issue, there is no purpose in maintaining Garda as a respondent. This request is granted and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

11TSM's request to be removed as a respondent is denied. It is clear from the applicant's narrative that actions of TSM's employees are alleged to have played a part in the decisions regarding what employment the applicant was offered by Securitas. Of course, the applicant will eventually have to prove what he alleges, but the fact that the applicant was no longer employed at the time Securitas allegedly took its decisions does not matter. If the applicant succeeds in proving what he alleges, this could lead to a finding that TSM is liable for a Code violation.

12Because of my decision to deny TSM's request to be removed as a respondent, it will now have to file a Response. In addition, as a hearing date has been set, TSM will have to comply with its disclosure requirements under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

13The Response from TSM is to be filed within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The Registrar is requested to provide TSM with the Confirmation of Hearing and TSM is required to provide its arguably relevant documents to the other parties in this proceeding no later than December 19, 2014. The date for all parties, including TSM, to provide their hearing documents, witness lists and witness statements to each other and the Tribunal remains January 5, 2015.

Order

14The request to remove Garda as a respondent is granted and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

15The request to remove TSM as a respondent is denied.

16TSM is to file a Response within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The Registrar is requested to provide TSM with the Confirmation of Hearing and TSM is required to provide its arguably relevant documents to the other parties no later than December 19, 2014. The date for all parties, including TSM, to provide their hearing documents, witness lists and witness statements to each other and the Tribunal remains January 5, 2015.