Andre Vigneault v. Aramark Canada Ltd. and Diane Browne, 2014 HRTO 1752

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andre Vigneault

Applicant

-and-

Aramark Canada Ltd. and Diane Browne

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: December 5, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1752

Indexed as: Vigneault v. Aramark Canada Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andre Vigneault, Applicant

Delphine St. Jacques, Representative

Aramark Canada Ltd. and Diane Browne, Respondents

Hal Rolph, Counsel

1The parties have had numerous days of hearing in this matter. The applicant is currently being cross-examined. The hearing is scheduled to resume on December 12, 2014.

2Initially, the applicant was seeking reinstatement as a remedy in the event that his Application is upheld by the Tribunal. However, during the hearing, the applicant’s position has now changed such that he is no longer seeking reinstatement. Instead, he seeks to amend the remedies that he is requesting to include future loss of wages and benefits in lieu of reinstatement to age 65 or until he secures alternate employment, whichever of the two events occurs first. In the event that he secures alternate employment, he seeks the difference in compensation between what he received while employed with the corporate respondent and his new position.

3The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions setting out their positions. The parties have now done so and they have been carefully considered by the Tribunal.

4The Tribunal is prepared to grant the applicant’s request to amend the remedies that he is seeking. I appreciate that the applicant has testified in examination-in-chief and cross-examination about his efforts to mitigate, and that his cross-examination continues. In the event that the applicant is recalled to testify about the new remedies that he is seeking, the respondents will have an opportunity to further cross-examine on that evidence.

5Of course, granting the applicant’s request does not mean that such remedies would be awarded in the event that his Application is upheld. The Tribunal expects that submissions about whether or not these remedies should be granted will be addressed during the parties’ final submissions.