Junkin v. Liza Home/Communities, 2014 HRTO 424

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alan Junkin

Applicant

-and-

Liza Home/Communities, The Mansouri Group Inc., Milltree Developments Inc., 1000690 Ontario Inc. and Shahrokh Nourmansouri

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: March 26, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 424

Indexed as: Junkin v. Liza Home/Communities

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Allan Junkin, Applicant

Bruce Best, Counsel

1In Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 108 the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request to add the Mansouri Group Inc., Milltree Developments Inc., and 1000690 Ontario Inc. as respondents to this Application. This was because the corporate structure or structures of the respondents was unclear and because failing to add these companies as respondents could result in the applicant being unable to benefit from any remedies in the event that his Application succeeded. It was also granted because the request was not opposed.

2The applicant now requests to add Shahrokh Nourmansouri as a personal respondent.

3He argues that Mr. Nourmansouri is the sole director, president and corporate secretary of The Mansouri Group and Milltree Developments Inc., and was the directing mind of 1000690 Ontario Inc. until its corporate registration was cancelled on November 24, 2012. He argues that the brand name “Liza Homes/Communities” has been used by both Milltree Developments Inc. and 1000690 Ontario Inc. The applicant further argues that at various times during his past employment with the respondents he was paid by different companies. For example, in 2002 his T4 was issued by Elderlane Developments Inc., in 2004 by Oshawa Horizons Inc., and in 2005 by 1351637 Ontario Ltd. In 2010 he was paid by Mallina Personnel Services Inc.

4In the absence of information about the corporate structure or structures of the respondents, and given the various corporate entities used by the respondents to pay the applicant, he maintains that it is necessary to name Shahrokh Nourmansouri as a personal respondent. He alleges that Mr. Nourmansouri is the directing mind of the named corporate respondents and other companies. He further alleges that the history of fluidity in these corporate arrangements indicates that there is a real risk that the corporate entities that he claims are responsible for discriminating against him may be dissolved before he can enforce any remedy against them.

5None of the corporate respondents has provided a response to this request, nor has Mr. Nourmansouri.

6The nature of the relationships between these corporations is unclear. A common thread linking most of them seems to be Mr. Nourmansouri’s position as a director. Further, he appears to have played the leading role in dealing with the applicant’s termination. For these reasons, and in the absence of any evidence or argument to the contrary, it appears to me that there is a real risk that the applicant will not be able to enforce a remedy – should he ultimately be successful in this Application – unless Mr. Nourmansouri is also added as a personal respondent. This justifies granting the applicant’s request (see in this regard the comments of the Divisional Court in Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Farris, 2012 ONSC 3876 at para. 51).

order

7The applicant’s request is granted, Shahrokh Nourmansouri is added as a personal respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly.