HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maryann Kasun
Applicant
-and-
Gino’s Pizza Inc., V. Food Group Inc., Baljit Gangar and Sonia Gangar
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Kasun v. Gino’s Pizza Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Maryann Kasun, Applicant
Mariso Scotto di Luzio, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to add two personal respondents to the Application and to correct the name of one of the corporate respondents.
2By Application filed on November 5, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of disability, sex and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her in regards to work scheduling and due to comments made by the two persons she is seeking to add as personal respondents. The applicant was self-represented at the time that she filed her Application.
3The hearing of the Application is scheduled for September 15, 2014.
Request to add personal respondents
4By request dated November 15, 2014, the applicant filed a request to add Baljit Gangar as a personal respondent to her Application. Mr. Gangar is the President and owner of one or both corporate respondents. After the mediation of this matter, the applicant’s new counsel sought to add Sonia Gangar as a personal respondent. According to the applicant, Ms. Gangar is a Manager and Director of Marketing from one or both corporate respondents.
5The respondents did not file a Response to the applicant’s request.
6The analysis applied by the Tribunal when dealing with requests to add respondents is the analysis set out in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, at para. 12 (“Smyth”). In Smyth, the Tribunal set out the following three considerations for deciding whether to add a respondent:
Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
7When considering the second factor set out in Smyth, the Tribunal has applied the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at para. 5 (“Persaud”). These factors focus mainly on whether the corporate respondent is responsible for the conduct of the proposed personal respondent, and whether there is a compelling legal reason for an individual to be named as a personal respondent. In particular, there may be a compelling legal reason for an individual to be named as a personal respondent if his or her conduct is a central issue in the case and extends beyond implementing organizational policies or practices. A compelling legal reason may also exist where the nature of the alleged conduct may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against the proposed personal respondent if a Code infringement is found. See Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 at para. 42 and Persaud at para. 5.
8Having considered the factors set out in Smyth and Persaud, I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s request to add Mr. Gangar and Ms. Gangar as personal respondents. The applicant’s allegations relate to alleged conduct by Mr. and Ms. Gangar. In particular, the applicant has alleged that certain comments allegedly made by Mr. Gangar constitute sexual harassment. She has also alleged that certain comments made by Ms. Gangar constitute harassment and/or discrimination on the ground of age. Due to the allegations made in the Application and the personal respondents’ positions of responsibility with the corporate respondents, it may be appropriate for the Tribunal to award a remedy against the personal respondents if the applicant meets her burden of proving her allegations in this case.
9The respondents have not asserted any prejudice that would result from the addition of these personal respondents.
10In light of these circumstances, I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s request to add Mr. Gangar and Ms. Gangar as personal respondents.
REQuest to correct name of corporate respondent
11The applicant requested that the name of one of the corporate respondents be changed from Vfoods to V. Food Group Inc. The applicant’s counsel submits that it was determined that the proper name for the corporate respondent was V. Food Group Inc. after conducting a corporate search.
12The respondent also did not respond to this request.
13I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s request to ensure that the proper corporate name is used in these proceedings.
Order
14For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s request to add Baljit Gangar and Sona Gangar as personal respondents is granted.
b. The applicant’s request to correct the name of the corporate respondent from Vfoods to V. Food Group Inc. is granted.
15The style of cause shall be amended accordingly.
16I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of May, 2014.
“signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair