Melanie Lindsey v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited and Manna Foods Inc., 2014 HRTO 372

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Melanie Lindsey

Applicant

-and-

McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited and Manna Foods Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: March 17, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 372

Indexed as: Lindsey v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Melanie Lindsey, Applicant

Shawn Weston, Representative

McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited, Respondent

Robert Bayne, Counsel

Manna Foods Inc., Respondent

Anita Landry, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the request filed by McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited (“MRCL”) that it be removed as a respondent to the Application.

2By Application filed on December 18, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of family status and marital status. She also alleged that the respondents reprised against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleged that the respondents breached the Code when her family status and marital status were not accommodated and when her employment was terminated. In particular, she alleged that her former employer’s policy requiring part-time employees to be available for midnight shifts had an adverse effect on her due to her child care obligations.

3MRCL seeks an order dismissing the Application as against it on the basis that the applicant was an employee of the respondent Manna Foods and that MRCL’s relationship to Manna Foods is that of franchisor/franchisee. MRCL states that, as a franchisor, it only provides operational support to Manna Foods. It states that it does not participate in or control the day to day operations of Manna Foods.

4I do not agree that this is a basis for the dismissal of the Application against MRCL at this preliminary stage. The Tribunal has consistently declined to dismiss Applications against franchisors at a preliminary stage. I note that Manna Foods has attached to its Response various employment policies of MRCL. It cannot be determined at this early stage whether MRCL is legally responsible for the policies that the applicant alleged were discriminatory. It also cannot be determined at his stage whether the franchise agreement or Manna Foods’ exercise of its obligations under that agreement were a factor in any discrimination experienced by the applicant. Finally, it cannot be determined at this early stage whether any discrimination in this case is connected to the “operational support” MRCL provides to Manna Foods. Following the Tribunal’s approach in other cases, the question of the franchisor’s liability should be determined following evidence and argument at the hearing. See, for example, Philip v. Giant Tiger Stores, 2009 HRTO 1227; Wozenilek v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada, 2010 HRTO 1120 and Atkinson v. Three Degrees Restaurant, 2010 HRTO 821.

Order

5For the reasons set out above, the MRCL’s request that it be removed as a respondent is dismissed.

6I am not seized.