HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tara Myers
Applicant
-and-
William Osler Health System, Laura Albisu, Teamsters Union Local 419
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Myers v. William Osler Health System
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Tara Myers, Applicant
Self-represented
William Osler Health System and Laura Albisu, Respondents
No submissions
Teamsters Union Local 419, Respondent
No submissions
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to add Tim Orbine as a respondent to this Application.
2The applicant filed a Request for Order (RFOP) on February 21, 2014 seeking to amend her Application by adding Tim Oribine as a respondent.
3Neither respondent has responded to the applicant’s RFOP and the time for doing so has lapsed.
BACKGROUND
4In her Application, the applicant identifies Tim Oribine as the contact person for the Teamsters Union Local 419. In the narrative section of her Application, she makes no particularized allegations against Tim Oribine, but makes various allegations against “the union”, alleging essentially that it did not address her Human Rights concerns.
5In her RFOP, the applicant submits that Tim Oribine should be named as a respondent “due to his inaction” and because he was president of the union at the time of her dismissal from employment.
6Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 at para. 42, the Tribunal set out the general principles that apply to this issue:
The unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Code, a corporation is deemed to be liable for “any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent”. Where there is no issue as to the ability of a corporate respondent to respond to or remedy an alleged Code infringement and no issue raised as to a corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the actions of an individual who is sought to be added as a personal respondent, then in my view the individual ought not be added as a personal respondent in the absence of some compelling juridical reason. A compelling juridical reason may exist, for example, where it is the individual conduct of a proposed personal respondent that is a central issue as opposed to actions which are more in the nature of following organizational practices or policies or where the nature of the alleged conduct of a proposed personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found.
7I am aware of no compelling reason to name Tim Oribine as a personal respondent. There are no particularized allegations in the Application against him, and his individual conduct is not a central issue. There is no indication of any alleged conduct of Tim Oribine’s that would make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against him should an infringement be found.
8In my view, considering all the circumstances, it is not necessary to involve Tim Oribine as an individual respondent in order to have a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the Application and the applicant’s request to name him as a respondent is denied.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of April, 2014.
“Signed by”
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair