HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Karen Davis
Applicant
-and-
Whitevale Golf Club and Michael O’Callaghan
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Davis v. Whitevale Golf Club
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Karen Davis, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). On November 7, 2014, the respondent Whitevale Golf Club (the “Club”) filed its Response.
2The Applicant was employed by the Club, which she alleges is a private equity golf club. She alleges, amongst other things, that she was harassed by Michael O’Callaghan, a member of the Club.
3On December 10, 2014, the Tribunal ordered in Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1772 that the Club had to provide to the applicant Mr. O’Callaghan’s contact information.
4On December 23, 2014, the applicant made a Request for an Order During Proceeding in which she seeks to add Mr. O’Callaghan as a respondent to the Application (the “RFOP”). As of this date neither the Club nor Mr. O’Callaghan have responded to the applicant’s RFOP.
Decision
5The Tribunal held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 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?
6In these circumstances I find that it is appropriate to add Mr. O’Callaghan as a respondent to the Application. First, the allegations against him are a central issue to the Application. The circumstances of this case raise novel issues as to who bears liability for his conduct. However, the applicant asserts that he is an equity member which can make him a part-owner of the Club. This is not an issue that has been fully addressed by the Club in its Response, including whether it can be held liable for the allegations made against one of its members. In the absence of submissions from the Club and Mr. O’Callaghan opposing adding him as a party, I am left with the applicant’s submissions. At this stage, I find that there are compelling reasons to add Mr. O’Callaghan as a respondent. I also note that this is a timely request and it would not be unfair to add him as a party at this time.
7However, this Interim Decision is not a final determination of whether Mr. O’Callaghan has personal liability in this matter or otherwise limits any defences that he may have to this matter which he may address in his Response.
Order
8The Tribunal orders:
a. Michael O’Callaghan is added as a respondent to the Application and the style of cause shall immediately be amended to reflect this change; and
b. Within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision Michael O’Callaghan must file a Form 2 Response to the Application;
c. The Tribunal will send the response to the applicant and she shall be given the opportunity to file a Reply in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of January, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair