Weddell v. CondoFresh, 2015 HRTO 633

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Haley Weddell Applicant

-and-

CondoFresh Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: May 14, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 633 Indexed as: Weddell v. CondoFresh

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Haley Weddell, Applicant Self-represented

CondoFresh, Respondent Andrew Monkhouse, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend his Application to add two personal respondents and to change the monetary remedy sought in the Application.

2This Interim decision will also address the respondent’s request that one of its witnesses, RL, be permitted to attend the June 23, 2015 hearing by teleconference.

amendment to add personal respondents

3By Request for Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”) dated April 20, 2015 the applicant sought to amend his Application to add the two owners of the respondent organization, CondoFresh, as personal respondents to the Application. The RFOP did not provide any specifics with regard to why they should be added as respondents, other than the applicant wants “to ensure that they are held individually accountable for their actions.”

4The respondent filed a Response to the RFOP on April 27, 2015. The respondent opposes the request.

5Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure state that, in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may add a party.

6However, the Tribunal will not add a proposed party in a perfunctory manner or as a matter of formality: Abi-Mansour v. Halton District School Board, 2010 HRTO 767. Rather it will decide whether it is appropriate to do so based on the parties materials and arguments: see Abi-Mansour, above.

7The Tribunal has refused to add personal respondents when the alleged actions and omissions of the proposed personal respondents were carried out strictly in their capacity as officers or employees of the organizational respondent and their personal conduct was not in issue. See for example Sigrist and Carson v. London Catholic District School Board, 2008 HRTO 14. In the present case there is no suggestion in the parties’ materials that the proposed personal respondents’ interactions with the applicant could be characterized as outside their capacity as supervisors of the respondent organization.

8Also, as appears again to be the situation in the present case, the Tribunal has expressed concern about the unnecessary naming of personal respondents in applications where there is an organizational or corporate respondent who is also liable for the alleged infringement of the applicant’s rights and is in a position to satisfy any remedies ordered in the case. See Sigrist and Carson, above.

9Given the fact that there is a corporate/organizational respondent and the applicant has not provided a compelling juridical reason to include the proposed personal respondents, I do not find it appropriate to add the proposed personal respondents as parties in this case.

request to amend remedy

10The RFOP indicates that the applicant was self-represented when he filed his Application and was not fully aware of his financial entitlements. He sought an amount of $10,000.00 for general damages and approximately $710.10 for special damages. The applicant subsequently met with a representative at the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. In the RFOP the applicant now seeks to amend the remedial claim to $31,899.25. The respondent opposes the request.

11Rule 1.7(c) as noted above states that the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended”.

12Given the nature of the proposed remedial amendment, I am satisfied that the Application may be amended with respect to the remedial claim. The proposed remedial amendment is simply a request to augment the damages claim to reflect the alleged loss of income and compensation for general damages. The requested amendment does not change the nature of the allegations of discrimination, nor impact the processing of the Application which is currently scheduled for hearing in June of 2015.

13On balance, having regard to the nature of the amendment and the absence of any clear prejudice, the amendment to the requested remedy is granted. This amendment is made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the remedies sought, and without prejudice to any position the respondent may wish to take regarding these issues.

request allowing witness to give evidence by teleconference

14On April 30, 2015 the respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings in which it seeks an order permitting one of its witnesses, RL, to testify by teleconference. Pursuant to Rule 1.7(a) the applicant was given until May 13, 2015 to respond to the request. No response was forthcoming.

15The witness, RL, was a co-worker of the applicant and is personally mentioned in the Application. The witness now permanently resides and works in Australia. In my view the respondent and the witness would suffer unreasonable financial hardship if the witness was required to testify in person. No one has opposed the request. The request is granted.

order

16The applicant’s request to add the two personal respondents identified by the applicant in his RFOP is denied.

17The Application is amended with respect to the remedial claim as per the applicant’s RFOP.

18The respondent’s request to have its witness, RL, testify by teleconference is granted.

19I am not seized.