Mongeon v. D A McLeod Company Ltd., 2014 HRTO 341

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julie Mongeon

Applicant

-and-

D A McLeod Company Ltd. and Michael Strasbourg

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: March 12, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 341

Indexed as: Mongeon v. D A McLeod Company Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Julie Mongeon, Applicant

Chantal Tie,Counsel

D A McLeod Company Ltd. and Michael Strasbourg, Respondents

Kecia Podetz, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), filed March 21, 2013.

2The respondent filed a Request for an Order removing Michael Strasbourg as an individual respondent to the Application. The respondent relies on the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31. The applicant does not consent to the Request.

3In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 (“Persaud”), the Tribunal set out a number of factors to consider in determining the question of the removal of individual respondents:

1. Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?

2. Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who sought to be removed?

3. Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?

4. Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?

5. Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?

4Unlike the facts in Persaud, Mr. Strasbourg is not alleged to be acting as an “instrument” of the organizational respondent by simply carrying out a decision of the organization. Mr. Strasbourg is alleged to have engaged in discrimination as the person to whom she made requests for accommodation. If an infringement is found, it may be appropriate to make an order against Mr. Strasbourg in his personal capacity as well as the organizational respondent. Accordingly I decline to exercise my discretion to remove Mr. Strasbourg as an individual respondent to this Application.

5Accordingly, the Request of the respondents is dismissed.

6I am not seized.