HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Christopher Cunneen
Applicant
-and-
Tri County Hockey and Jonathan Cameron
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Cunneen v. Tri County Hockey
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Christopher Cunneen, Applicant
Clara Matheson, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to add a personal respondent to the Application. It also addresses his requests to amend the social area and remedies listed in the Application.
2In his Application, the applicant alleged discrimination because of disability, sex 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 him when they denied him the opportunity to play in a non-contact recreational hockey league because he has cerebral palsy. The applicant named Tri County Hockey as a respondent to the Application.
3The hearing of the Application is scheduled for January 4, 2016.
Request to add personal respondent
4The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which he sought to add the convener of the Tri County Hockey league, Jonathan Cameron, as a personal respondent to the Application.
5The respondents did not respond 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 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. Cameron as a personal respondent. The applicant’s Application relates to a decision that was allegedly made by Mr. Cameron as convenor of the hockey league. Due to the allegations made in the Application and the personal respondents’ position as convener of the hockey league, it may be appropriate for the Tribunal to award a remedy against the personal respondent if the applicant meets his burden of proving his allegations in this case.
9The respondents have not replied to the applicant’s request. Therefore, there is no suggestion that any prejudice would result to the respondents from the addition of Mr. Cameron as a personal respondent. Although the applicant’s request is being made late in these proceedings, Mr. Cameron was initially named as a representative of the hockey league in the Application and he filed the Response on behalf of Tri County Hockey. Therefore, he has had notice of this proceeding from the outset and he himself has been responsible for putting forward the hockey league’s response in this case.
10For all these reasons, I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s request to add Mr. Cameron as a personal respondent.
REQuest to amend social a listed in application
11In his Application, the applicant (who was self-represented at the time) listed “membership in a vocational association” as the social area engaged by the Application. The applicant has now retained counsel and requested that his Application be amended to list “goods, services and facilities” as the social area for his Application.
12I grant this request. It is clear from the narrative in the Application that the applicant is alleging discrimination with respect to the opportunity to play hockey in the hockey league. The amendment of the social area does not change the nature of his allegations but instead better reflects the social area engaged by these allegations.
request to amend remedy
13In his Application, the applicant sought $320 as a remedy as well as certain non-monetary remedies. In his RFOP, the applicant requests that the monetary remedy sought be amended to $20,000.
14I grant the applicant’s request to amend the remedial relief requested in the Application. The Tribunal has regularly granted such requests in past decisions. See, for example, Marino v. Compuware Corporation of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1390 and Loney v. Combusco Enterprises, 2011 HRTO 1050.
15This remedial amendment is made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the appropriateness of the remedies sought, and without prejudice to any position the respondent may wish to take regarding this issue at the hearing.
Order
16For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s request to add Jonathan Cameron as a personal respondent is granted. The style of cause shall be amended accordingly.
b. The applicant’s request to amend his Application to add the social area of “goods, services and facilities” is granted
c. The applicant’s request to amend the remedy sought in the Application is granted.
17I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 03rd day of November, 2015.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair