HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rochelle Ann McLaren

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Deafblind Association Ontario Chapter

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: November 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1614

Indexed as: McLaren v. Canadian Deafblind Association Ontario Chapter

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rochelle Ann McLaren, Applicant

Self-represented

Canadian Deafblind Association Ontario Chapter, Respondent

Peter Quinlan, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

INTRODUCTION

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request to remove the named personal respondent as a party to this Application.

BACKGROUND

3The applicant filed an Application against the organizational respondent and a personal respondent. She alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

Request to Remove the Personal Respondents

4By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), the respondents requested that the Tribunal remove the named personal respondent as a party to this proceeding. The applicant consented to the removal of the personal respondent.

5In their RFOP, the respondents rely upon the well-established criteria for removal of a personal respondent as set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at para. 5, whereby this Tribunal applies the following factors when considering such requests:

1. Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?

2. Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who sought to be removed?

3. Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?

4. Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?

5. Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?

6With regard to the first three factors: there is a corporate respondent, Canadian Deafblind Association Ontario Chapter, alleged to be liable for the alleged conduct of the personal respondent who is one of its employees; the parties have raised no issue over the organizational respondent’s alleged deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent; and there is no issue as to the ability of the organizational respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged infringements.

7The issue is whether there is any compelling reason to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent. In considering whether any compelling reason exists to continue a proceeding against a personal respondent, the Tribunal has found that one way of approaching the question is to ask whether it is necessary to involve this person as a party in order to have a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the complaint. See, for example, Wolde-Yohannes v. Marconi Club of London, 2015 HRTO 90.

8The respondent submits that it would be fair and expeditious to allow the Application to proceed without the personal respondent remaining as a party and that there will be no prejudice to the applicant if the personal respondent is removed.

9The applicant does not make any direct allegations against the personal respondent. It appears that the personal respondent is an administrative assistant employed by the corporate respondent. She corresponded with the applicant regarding her interview for an employment position at the corporate respondent.

10Given that the personal respondent was acting in her capacity as an employee of the corporate respondent and was acting in the scope of her duties when she corresponded with the applicant, I find that it is appropriate to remove the personal respondent as a party. This will allow for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the Application. The applicant will not be prejudiced by the removal of the personal respondent.

ORDER

11The respondents’ request to remove the personal respondent to this Application is granted. The style of cause is amended accordingly.

12As the parties have both agreed to mediation, the Tribunal will schedule mediation.

13I am not seized of this matter.