Beg v. Ramada Worldwide Inc., 2014 HRTO 508

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jehan Beg Applicant

-and-

Ramada Worldwide Inc. o/a Ramada Plaza Toronto Airport Hotel and Stage West Theatre, Mayfield Management Inc. o/a Stage West All Suite Hotel, and Rohan Chinniah Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: April 14, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 508 Indexed as: Beg v. Ramada Worldwide Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jehan Beg, Applicant Marisa Scotto do Luzio, Counsel

Ramada Worldwide Inc. o/a Ramada Plaza Toronto Airport Hotel and Stage West Theatre, Mayfield Management Inc. o/a Stage West All Suite Hotel, and Rohan Chinniah, Respondent(s) No one appearing

1This is an Application filed on April 3, 2013, under section 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, including sexual harassment and sexual solicitation.

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated March 6, 2014, the Tribunal described the procedural history of the Application as follows:

[2] In a Case Assessment Direction dated July 16, 2013 ("CAD"), the Tribunal deferred the Application pending completion of the criminal proceeding involving the personal respondent. In an Interim Decision dated November 28, 2013, 2013 HRTO 1967, upon the request of the applicant, the Tribunal re-activated the Application and directed the respondents to file Responses.

[3] The personal respondent has filed a Response, but the corporate respondents Ramada Worldwide Inc. o/a Ramada Plaza Toronto Plaza Airport Hotel and Mayfield Management Inc. have not.

[4] The Tribunal has received an email dated February 25, 2014 from a Daniel Pigeon, who identifies as being the Chief Financial Officer of a company related to Mayfield Management Inc. ("MMI"). Mr. Pigeon writes that the property Ramada Plaza Toronto Airport and Stage West Theatre ("RPTA") was sold on August 12, 2013 and that the employment of management by MMI to operate RPTA was terminated on the date of sale. He advises that in light of this, it is not possible to respond, on behalf of MMI, although he will cooperate, within reason, to bring MMI's involvement in this file to a conclusion.

3Also in the Case Assessment Direction of March 6, 2014, the Tribunal directed the applicant to obtain further contact names and updated information about the corporate respondents, including whether or not they continues to operate, as well as any submissions that she wishes to file about the information contained in Mr. Pigeon's email. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide this material to the Tribunal no later than Friday, March 21, 2014, copying the other respondents and Mr. Pigeon.

applicant's submissions

4On March 21, 2014, the applicant filed submissions in response to the Tribunal's direction in the Case Assessment Direction of March 6, 2014. The applicant submitted that it conducted corporate searches that revealed that both organizational respondents remain active. The applicant submitted that the organizational respondents should continue to be named as respondents in this proceeding because their liability does not necessarily end despite no longer owning or managing the property in which the alleged Code breaches occurred. The applicant submitted that it appears that the hotel property has been sold, but the applicant has no information regarding whether liabilities were transferred as part of the sale. The applicant also submitted that it has reason to doubt Mr. Pigeon's statement that "Employment of all management by MMI to operate RPTA was terminated on the date of sale" because the applicant's investigation revealed that the General Manager of the hotel at the time the incidents in question in this Application occurred is currently the General Manager of the property, now known as SW Hotel Toronto Airport, and is a director of MMI and holds the position of secretary. The applicant provided corporate addresses for both organizational respondents and submitted that the Tribunal should serve the Application upon them and require them to file Responses.

decision

5It is not clear to me, on the materials filed to date, that the organization respondents' liability for alleged Code breaches occurring when they owned/managed the hotel property in question is extinguished by a subsequent sale of the property. The information provided by the applicant indicates that both organizational respondents remain in business. In these circumstances, it is in my view appropriate to serve the Application on the organizational respondents at the addresses provided by the applicant and require them to file Responses.

Direction

6The Tribunal shall serve the Application on the organizational respondents the addresses set out in the applicant's letter to the Tribunal of March 21, 2014 and shall direct them to file Responses in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

7I am not seized