Beg v. Mayfield Management Inc., 2015 HRTO 63

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jehan Beg Applicant

-and-

Mayfield Management Inc. o/a Stage West All Suite Hotel, 722496 Ontario Limited, Mayfield GP No. 1, Mayfield Suites General Partner Inc., 5400 Dixie Road Inc., and Rohan Chinniah Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: January 15, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 63 Indexed as: Beg v. Mayfield Management Inc.

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to her employment as an employee of Ramada Plaza Toronto Airport Hotel, located at 5400 Dixie Road (“the hotel”), because of sex, sexual harassment and sexual solicitation contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). She alleges that she was sexually harassed by one of the managers of the hotel, which she reported to the hotel’s general manager, human resources manager and other managers, but that management failed to appropriately address this issue. The Application was filed in April 2013 and was subsequently deferred pending the conclusion of a criminal trial. The Application was re-activated by Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1967.

2Only the personal respondent has filed a Response. Since then, the correct identity of the corporate respondents has been at issue since the hotel was sold in August 2013 to new owners.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to remove Ramada Worldwide Inc. o/a Ramada Plaza Toronto Airport Hotel (“Ramada Worldwide”) as a respondent and adding 722496 Ontario Limited (“722496”) and Sandman Hotels, Inns & Suites Limited operating as SW Hotel Toronto Airport (“Sandman”) as respondents.

4Sandman filed a Response to the RFOP in which it indicated that it is not a proper party to the Application because it entered into a purchase agreement in June 2013 with a closing that occurred in August 2013 to purchase the hotel from Mayfield Suites Hotel Mississauga Limited Partnership (“Mayfield Suites Hotel”) by its General Partner GP No. 1 and 722496. It filed a copy of the purchase agreement, with parts redacted, and pointed out that at paragraph 11.5 of the purchase agreement, the vendor was responsible for any “claims, grievances or demands by any employee in respect of employment prior to the time of Closing”.

5PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) sent a letter stating that it was discharged as a liquidator for 722496 in July 2008, and enclosed an Order of Morawetz J. confirming this. PwC had been sent the RFOP by the applicant.

6In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the materials filed. The applicant filed submissions stating that based upon Sandman’s Response to the RFOP, she was satisfied that it was not a proper respondent to these proceedings. She also submitted that Mayfield Management Inc. o/a Stage West All Suite Hotel (“MMI”) should continue to be named as a respondent as, to her knowledge, it managed the hotel and employed her and the other employees. The applicant confirmed that she sent her RFOP to the president and the secretary of 722496 at the addresses on its corporate search as PwC had been discharged as a liquidator.

7The applicant then filed another RFOP seeking to add three new parties as organizational respondents, based upon the purchase agreement filed by Sandman, and filed copies of their corporate searches. These respondents are: Mayfield GP No. 1 (“Mayfield GP”); Mayfield Suites General Partner Inc. (“Mayfield Suites”); and 5400 Dixie Road Inc. (“5400”). Subsequently, the applicant filed correspondence that she received from Jim Hawley, who is named as an administrator on the corporate filings of 5400, in which Mr. Hawley provides a history of “Stage West Hotel” and a description of its ownership, including its general and limited partnerships. Mr. Hawley did not file this with the Tribunal.

8The applicant submits that Mayfield Suites Hotel appears, from the corporate filings, to be cancelled. She notes that it is owned by 5400, which is active, with John Pennington listed as its president and officer. A second registration for Mayfield Suites Hotel also appears, from the corporate filings, to be cancelled. This company is owned by Mayfield Suites, which is active, and which notes Muhammed Huq as an officer and general manager. The corporate search for Mayfield GP indicates that it is active, with Mr. Pennington listed as the secretary/vice-president and Peter Lo as the president.

law and analysis

9Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“the Rules”) permits the Tribunal to add or remove a party. At para. 12 of Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, the Tribunal stated that it would consider the following, in deciding whether or not to add a respondent:

(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?

10I will address each of the respondents, or proposed respondents, in turn. I note that at this point there are allegations only in this proceeding against the respondents, and that the respondents or proposed respondents have largely been unresponsive to the applicant’s RFOPs such that the applicant is trying to piece together who owned and operated the hotel on her own. Once the respondents file Responses, or more clearly state their relationship with the hotel and its employees, then there may be further revisions to the respondents.

Ramada Worldwide

11The applicant has requested that Ramada Worldwide be removed as a respondent as the hotel was independently owned and operated. Accordingly, Ramada Worldwide is removed as a respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

Sandman

12Sandman will not be added as a respondent given that it purchased the hotel after the incidents alleged and after the Application was filed.

722496

13722496 Ontario Limited will be added as a respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly. From the information put forward by the applicant, it was one of the owners of the hotel and operated it. From the offer to purchase filed by Sandman, it is listed as one of the vendors of the hotel. Accordingly, it could be liable for the manager’s alleged conduct and/or for its responses to the applicant once she told them about the alleged harassment. There is no prejudice to adding 722496 at this point given the stage the Application is at in the Tribunal’s proceedings.

Mayfield GP No. 1

14Mayfield GP is also added as a respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly. It too is listed a vendor of the hotel in the purchase documentation filed by Sandman. Accordingly, it could be liable for the manager’s alleged conduct and/or for its responses to the applicant once she told them about the alleged harassment. There is no prejudice to add Mayfield GP given the stage the Application is at in the Tribunal’s proceedings.

Mayfield Suites General Partner Inc.

15Mayfield Suites is also added as a respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly. From the purchase documentation filed by Sandman, one of the vendors is identified as Mayfield Suites Hotel. From the corporate search documentation filed by the applicant, Mayfield Suites Hotel appears to have expired, but was also owned by Mayfield Suites General Partner Inc. Accordingly, it could be liable for the manager’s alleged conduct and/or for its responses to the applicant once she told them about the alleged harassment. There is no prejudice to add Mayfield Suites given the stage the Application is at in the Tribunal’s proceedings.

5400

165400 Dixie Road Inc. is also added as a respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly. As with Mayfield Suites, 5400 appears to be an owner of Mayfield Suites Hotel, in a second filing which also appears to be expired. Accordingly, it could be liable for the manager’s alleged conduct and/or for its responses to the applicant once she told them about the alleged harassment. There is no prejudice to add 5400 given the stage the Application is at in the Tribunal’s proceedings.

order

17The Tribunal orders the following:

a. Ramada Worldwide is removed as a respondent;

b. 722496 Ontario Limited, Mayfield GP No. 1, Mayfield Suites General Partner Inc., and 5400 Dixie Road Inc. are all added as respondents and the style of cause is amended accordingly;

c. With the exception of Rohan Chinniah, who has filed a Response, the remaining respondents are directed to file Responses, with the Tribunal, no later than 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision. The Tribunal will send these Responses to the applicant and the personal respondent.

18I am not seized with this matter.