Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
De Anna Granes
Applicant
-and-
2389193 Ontario Inc., Houston Canada Inc., and Rajneesh Dutta
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Granes v. 2389193 Ontario Inc.
1This Interim Decision is about the identity of the respondents.
2The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, including sexual harassment and sexual solicitation, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). On her Application, the applicant identified two respondents – one identified as “Houston Avenue Bar and Grill” located in Barrie with Raj Dutta, co-owner named as the contact (“the Barrie respondent”), and another identified “2389193 Ontario Inc.” located in Laval, Quebec with a Richard Carrer, Vice President named as the contact (“the Laval respondent”). The Application was sent to the respondents for Responses.
3The Barrie respondent filed a Response. In responding to the question “Full Name of Organization” on the Response form, it identified itself as “2389193 Ontario Inc. Houston Avenue Bar & Grill” with Rajneesh Dutta identified as being its Vice-President. In its Response, the Barrie respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application because another proceeding, a Barrie Police Services Report, decided not to lay criminal charges against Mr. Dutta.
4The Laval respondent did not file a Response.
5Shortly after the Barrie respondent’s Response was filed, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which she seeks to add an individual, Rajneesh Dutta, as an individual respondent to her Application. She submits that she missed the opportunity to earlier name him. Further in her RFOP, she identifies the two corporate respondents as being 230130 Ontario Ltd. Houston Avenue Bar & Grill, located at the Barrie address, and Houston Avenue Bar & Grill located at the Laval, Quebec address.
6The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated September 29, 2014 (“the September CAD”), directing the applicant to clarify which numbered company she intended to name in relation to the Barrie address. The applicant filed submissions stating that she intended to name 2389193 Ont. Inc. as the Barrie respondent and Houston Avenue Bar and Grill Head Office as the Laval respondent, in addition to naming Mr. Dutta as an individual respondent.
7The Tribunal issued another Case Assessment Direction dated October 21, 2014 (“the October CAD”) in which it directed 2389193 Ont. Inc. and Houston Avenue Bar and Grill Head Office to file submissions about them being identified this way, rather than as they were currently named. A lawyer for Richard Carrer, who had been named as a contact for the Laval location, wrote to the Tribunal. The lawyer wrote that Mr. Carrer is a vice-president of Houston Canada Inc., which is not involved on a day-to-day basis with its franchisees, and because of this, Mr. Carrer’s belief is that he will not be required to respond further to a matter he has no involvement with. He also stated that 230130 Ontario Ltd. is no longer an active company. Neither Mr. Dutta, nor 2389193 Ont. Inc. filed any submissions and the time for doing so has passed.
8The Tribunal issued a Registrar’s letter dated November 5, 2014, in which it directed the applicant to respond to the information contained in the lawyer’s letter. The applicant filed submissions stating that Mr. Carrer was not named as a personal respondent, but rather as a contact for the Laval company, which she continues to identify as Houston Avenue Bar and Grill (Head Office). She asserted, again, that her intention is to name three respondents: Rajneesh Dutta, 2389193 Ontario Inc., and Houston Avenue Bar and Grill (Head Office).
ANALYSIS
Adding Rajneesh Dutta as a personal respondent
9Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure permits the Tribunal to add or remove a party. The criteria for adding a respondent to an Application is set out in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 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?
10It is appropriate to add Rajneesh Dutta as an individual respondent. The allegations in the Application are about Mr. Dutta’s conduct which, if proven, could result in a finding that the Code was violated. [