Joel Lacoursiere v. Orangeville Police Service, 2015 HRTO 203

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joel Lacoursiere Applicant

-and-

Orangeville Police Service, Joseph Tomei, Lindsay White, Daniel Maloney and Wayne Kalinski Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume
Date: February 13, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 203
Indexed as: Lacoursiere v. Orangeville Police Service

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joel Lacoursiere, Applicant
Self-represented

Orangeville Police Service, Joseph Tomei, Lindsay White, Daniel Maloney and Wayne Kalinski, Respondents
William D. Anderson, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application on January 15, 2014 alleging that the respondents reprised against him when he participated in a proceeding commenced at the Tribunal by a fellow employee (S.T.C.).

2The applicant was granted leave to amend his Application by the Tribunal on November 12, 2014 (2014 HRTO 1646) to include the allegation that he was reprised against on the basis of his association with another employee (C.R.) who also filed an application against the organizational respondent.

3The respondents Request that the Tribunal remove the individually named respondents from the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s decisions in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 and Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31.

4I have reviewed the materials filed by the parties. The respondent is correct that the Tribunal routinely removes individual respondents in cases where they are alleged to have engaged in discrimination on the basis, among other things, that they were acting in the course of their employment and their employer would be vicariously liable for their conduct. The intention of the individual respondents in those cases is not a defence to allegations of discrimination.

5However, what the applicant alleges in this case is reprisal which raises the issue of intent and therefore may put in issue the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the individual respondents. For that reason, it would not be appropriate to remove the individual respondents from this Application at this time.

ORDER

6The Tribunal orders:

• The Request to remove individual respondents is denied.

7I am not seized.