Smith v. 2144174 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 1384

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeremy Smith Applicant

-and-

2144174 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Ventech Plumbing & Heating and Riley Venne Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: October 19, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1384 Indexed as: Smith v. 2144174 Ontario Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jeremy Smith, Applicant David Bloom, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to add the applicant’s former employer, 2144174 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Ventech Plumbing & Heating, as an organizational respondent to his Application.

2In his Application, the applicant named the owner of the company as a respondent, alleging that he experienced discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, he alleged that his disability was a factor in his termination.

REquest to add The Former Employer as A respondent

3The applicant was self-represented at the time that he filed his Application but has since retained counsel. The applicant’s counsel filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the Application to add the former employer as a respondent.

4The respondent, Riley Venne, who is identified as the owner of the proposed organizational respondent, did not file submissions in response to the Request and the time for doing so has passed.

Analysis

5The applicant’s allegations against the proposed organizational respondent fall within the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Code and therefore, he has a right to file a new Application. Given the fact that the applicant’s allegations arise from the termination of his employment, both Applications would be joined and heard together.

6I have also considered that the analysis applied by the Tribunal 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:

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?

7Although the applicant has a right to file a fresh Application against his former employer, I have also applied the factors in Smyth to confirm my finding that the applicant’s former employer is a proper respondent to this Application.

8I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s request to add his former employer as a respondent. The alleged discrimination in this case arises from the applicant’s employment. The applicant’s allegations could support a finding that the organizational respondent is responsible for any violation of the Code by the individual respondent. The parties have participated in mediation but a hearing date has not yet been set. In the absence of any submissions, I am not prepared to infer that the organizational and individual respondents would experience any prejudice from a decision to add a respondent at this stage in the proceeding.

9For these reasons, the applicant’s request to add his former employer as a respondent is granted.

Order

10For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to add 2144174 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Ventech Plumbing & Heating as a respondent is granted;

b. 2144174 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Ventech Plumbing & Heating may file a Response, if necessary, by November 16, 2015. If the applicant wishes to file a Reply to the new Response, he must do so by November 23, 2015.

11I am not seized.