Davis v. Whitevale Golf Club, 2014 HRTO 1772

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen Davis

Applicant

-and-

Whitevale Golf Club

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: December 10, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1772

Indexed as: Davis v. Whitevale Golf Club

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Karen Davis, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.

2On November 18, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the full name and address of Mike O’Callahan, a member of the respondent golf club, in order that she could add him to the Application as an individual respondent and serve the Application on him. The respondent did not respond to the request and the time for doing so has passed.

Analysis and Decision

3The Tribunal will not consider a request to add a party unless and until the proposed party has received notice of the request to add him or her and has had an opportunity to respond to the request. Accordingly, the applicant must provide Mr. O’Callahan, the proposed respondent, with her request. In order to do that, the applicant requires his full name and address, which it appears the respondent can provide. Although the applicant submitted that she wishes to have the proposed respondent added to the Application, she has not provided any submissions supporting the request, i.e., explaining why it is appropriate and necessary to add the proposed respondent.

Order

4In these circumstances, the Tribunal orders as follows:

1. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent shall provide the full name and address of Mike O’Callahan to the applicant;

2. Within 14 days of receiving Mr. O’Callahan’s address, the applicant shall file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent and the proposed respondent a Request for an Order During Proceedings explaining why the Tribunal should add the proposed respondent to the Application; and

3. The respondent and proposed respondent shall respond to the request described in paragraph 4(2) above in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of procedure.

5The parties may wish to consult the Tribunal’s jurisprudence regarding adding parties. See, for example, Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513. Decisions of the Tribunal can be found on at http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/index.html. The Tribunal’s Rules can be found on the Tribunal’s website at http://www.hrto.ca/hrto/index.php?q=en/node/28.

6I am not seized.