HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Johnathon Stavrou
Applicant
-and-
Zeta Psi Social Fraternity, University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Tau Theta Chapter, Zeta Psi Fraternity
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Date: May 21, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 724
Indexed as: Stavrou v. Zeta Psi Social Fraternity
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Johnathon Stavrou, Applicant
Erin Hallock, Counsel
Zeta Psi Social Fraternity, Respondent
Kim Duong, Counsel
University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Respondent
Cheryl Foy, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2This Interim Decision addresses a number of procedural issues.
Request to Defer
3In its Response filed on November 6, 2013, the respondent University of Ontario Institute of Technology (“UOIT”) seeks the deferral of the Application on the basis that the applicant filed an outstanding complaint to its diversity office which is being investigated.
4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
5The Tribunal has determined that an internal investigation is not a proceeding for the purposes of section 45.1: See Nash v. Ontario (Attorney General) 2010 HRTO 1530. I have reviewed the submissions of the parties and find it is not appropriate to defer this Application. UOIT’s internal investigation is not a proceeding because it is a purely private internal process which does not require compliance with the rules of procedural fairness or provide for an independent decision-making process. Therefore, it is fair, just and expeditious for the Tribunal to proceed with the Application.
Request for Summary Hearing
6On December 19, 2014 the respondent Zeta Psi Social Fraternity filed a Form 26, Requesting that the Tribunal direct a Summary Hearing be held in this proceeding.
7Having considered the respondent’s Request I find that it is not appropriate to direct that a Summary Hearing be held. Pursuant to Rule 19.A.5 I am not required to provide any reasons for this determination.
Request for an Order during Proceedings
8On January 31, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (the “RFOP”) seeking to add amend the Application and to add a respondent Tau Theta Chapter, Zeta Psi Fraternity (the “proposed respondent”). The applicant eventually confirmed that he delivered the RFOP to the proposed respondent on April 30, 2014. No party or the proposed respondent filed any submissions in response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has passed. The RFOP is therefore unopposed.
Request to amend
9In the RFOP the applicant seeks to amend the Application to vary the remedies sought.
10In considering requests to amend applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend, and the prejudice to the respondent(s). See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563. The Tribunal is also guided by what would be most fair, just and expeditious in the circumstances.
11In the circumstances of this case, given that the amendment will not delay the Application or cause prejudice to the respondents I find that it is appropriate to grant the amendment.
Request to add an organizational respondent
12The Tribunal, on its own initiative, or at the request of a party, may add parties to the hearing if it appears that they may have infringed a right under the Code. The Tribunal may add a party in order to provide for “fair, just and expeditious” resolution of an application, under s. 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. As noted in Marchese v. Fortinos, 2009 HRTO 25, 2009 HRTO 25, the Tribunal will not add a proposed party in a perfunctory manner or as a matter of formality. Rather, it will decide whether it is appropriate to do so based on the parties’ materials and arguments. The Tribunal held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, 2009 HRTO 1513 that when determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:
(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
(2) 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?
(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
13Having considered the matter I find that it is appropriate to add Tau Theta Chapter, Zeta Psi Fraternity as a respondent to the Application. There are allegations in the Application, which depending on the circumstances, could be the subject of findings or a Tribunal order. I also note that the Request to add a party is unopposed.
Order
14The Tribunal orders:
a. The University of Ontario Institute of Technology’s Request to defer is denied;
b. Zeta Psi Social Fraternity’s Request for a Summary hearing is denied;
c. The applicant’s Request for an Order during Proceeding is granted and;
i. the Application is amended to include the remedies contained therein; and
ii. Tau Theta Chapter, Zeta Psi Fraternity is added as a respondent to the Application and the style of cause shall be immediately amended to reflect this change; and
iii. Within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision Tau Theta Chapter, Zeta Psi Fraternity must file a Response to the Application.
15I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of May, 2014.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair```