Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Ellen Orzy
Applicant
-and-
Financial Debt Recovery Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Orzy v. Financial Debt Recovery Ltd.
Choose an item.
Ellen Joy Orzy, Applicant
Gerald Sternberg, Representative
Financial Debt Recovery Ltd and Allen Jayaratnam., Respondent
Michelle Jackson, Representative
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s Request for a Summary Hearing and the applicant’s request to add a personal respondent.
2This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
Request for Summary Hearing
3On September 21, 2015, the respondent filed a Request for a Summary Hearing. The applicant opposed this request.
4Under Rule 19A.5 of the Tribunal’s rules of Procedure, the Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision to hold or not hold a summary hearing. With respect to this case, I note that the issues raised by the applicant and the respondent may only be resolved after hearing evidence in a hearing on the merits. The Tribunal’s summary hearing process is used to deal with those applications where the allegations may be legally insufficient to constitute a case to be answered. That does not appear to be the case here. Summary hearings do not involve the hearing of any evidence. In order to address the respondent’s refutation of the applicant’s allegations, a hearing on the merits must be held. Therefore, the respondent’s Request for Summary Hearing is denied.
Request to Add a Personal Respondent
5By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), the applicant requested that Allen Jayaratnam be added as a personal respondent.
6In order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has the power to add or remove a party to the proceeding (Rule 1.7 (b). In exercising its discretion with respect to whether it ought to add a respondent to an ongoing proceeding, the Tribunal has stated that it will consider among other things whether there are allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code, whether there is a compelling reason to include an individual respondent when an organization is also named and whether it would be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the personal respondent.
7I understand that Mr. Jayaratnam continues to be employed by the corporate respondent. I also understand that the corporate respondent and the applicant have attempted to settle the Application by way of mediation which was unsuccessful. It would appear that Mr. Jayaratnam was not party to the mediation. It would also appear that Mr. Jayaratnam has not been served with a copy of the RFOP to add him as a party notwithstanding that the RFOP form itself and Rule 19.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of practice state that Requests for Order During Proceedings must be delivered to “any person or organization who may have an interest in the request.”
8In the circumstances, I find that it would not be fair or just to add Mr. Jayaratnam as a party at this late stage in the proceeding, particularly given he has not received notice of the Request. Therefore, the applicant’s request to add Mr. Jayaratnam as a responding party to the proceeding is denied.
Order
9For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The respondent’s Request for a Summary Hearing is denied.
b. The applicant’s request to add Allen Jayaratnam as a personal respondent is denied.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 12^th^ day of November, 2015.
“Signed By”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair