Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Ikram Dahoui
Applicant
-and-
Lori Stuart and Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc.
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Indexed as: Dahoui v. Stuart
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ikram Dahoui, Applicant
Self-represented
Lori Stuart, Respondent
Gita Anand, Counsel
Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc., Respondent
W. Colin Osterberg, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend her Application to add Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc. as a respondent.
2The personal respondent takes no position with respect to the applicant’s request. The proposed respondent does not object to the request.
Add Corporate Respondent
3Rule 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 paragraph 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.
4In Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, the Tribunal set out at paragraph 12 the factors to consider when deciding whether to add a respondent, as follows:
a. Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
b. 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?
c. Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
5The applicant seeks to add the corporate respondent because it is the personal respondent’s employer.
6Given the relationship between the personal respondent and the corporate respondent; the fact that the proposed respondent does not object to the request; and the fact that the personal respondent takes no position on the applicant’s request, it is appropriate to add the corporate respondent as a party because there are allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
order
7The Tribunal orders that:
a. the applicant’s request to amend her Application to add the corporate respondent is granted;
b. the applicant shall deliver her amended Application to the corporate respondent by no later than November 6, 2015, and shall file it and a Form 23 Statement of Delivery with the Tribunal;
c. the corporate respondent shall file its Form 2 Response by no later than December 11, 2015, and shall file it and a Form 23 Statement of Delivery with the Tribunal;
d. the applicant shall file any Form 3 Reply in response to the corporate respondent’s Form 2 Response by no later than December 28, 2015, and shall file it and a Form 23 Statement of Delivery with the Tribunal.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of October, 2015.
“Signed By”
Dawn J. Kershaw
Vice-chair```