HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Adam Lebel
Applicant
-and-
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Indexed as: Lebel v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario
1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for June 18 and 19, 2015, in London.
2The respondents filed a Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) on May 1, 2015, requesting that:
a. The personal respondents be removed as parties;
b. The applicant provide his Rule 16.1 disclosure;
c. The Application be deferred in light of outstanding grievances; and
d. Certain paragraphs of the Application be struck.
3The applicant filed a Form 11 Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings on May 15, 2015 that responded only to the issue of deferral.
Removal of Personal Respondents
4Section 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
In order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may add or remove a party.
5The Tribunal in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, sets out at paras. 4 and 5 the principles for removing personal respondents:
Is there a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?
Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who [is] sought to be removed?
Is there any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?
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?
Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?
6The respondent submits the personal respondents should be removed for the reasons that follow:
Because the applicant alleged employment-related discrimination and failure to accommodate in the workplace, it is not necessary to name the personal respondents;
the applicant makes no allegations that would support the proposition that the personal respondents engaged in discrimination against the applicant;
there is no allegation that the personal respondents were acting outside of the scope of their employment; and
the corporate respondent assumes liability for the conduct of the personal respondents.
7The Tribunal finds the respondents’ submissions persuasive. The applicant made no allegations that the personal respondents’ conduct was central to the allegations in the Application.
8Specifically, he made no allegation that the personal respondents acted outside the scope of their employment. The corporate respondent assumes responsibility for the actions of the personal respondents.
9There is no prejudice to the applicant if the personal respondents are removed.
10The Tribunal orders that the personal respondents are removed, and the style of cause is amended accordingly.
Rule 16.1 Disclosure
11The applicant has filed a Form 23 Statement of Delivery confirming he delivered his Rule 16.1 disclosure documents to the respondent on May 19, 2015, by e-mail. The respondent’s preferred method of receiving documents is by fax, and the applicant shall re-send the Rule 16.1 disclosure again by fax by no later than June 3, 2015, and file with the Tribunal another Form 23 Statement of Delivery confirming he has done so by no later than June 4, 2015.
Deferral
12The applicant’s Form 11 Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings includes two forms that purport to be the applicant’s withdrawal of the outstanding grievances, namely of 2014-0064-0051 and 2014-0064-0008. The purported withdrawals were signed on December 10, 2014 and May 1, 2015 by Walter Hohman “on behalf” respectively.
13However, on May 1, 2015 a letter from the respondent denies the grievances, which means as of that date they were not considered to have been withdrawn. In addition, on May 4, 2015, the applicant’s representative sent an e-mail to the Union requesting information with respect to the status of these grievances.
14At this point, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the grievances have been withdrawn.
15The applicant is to provide any additional documents he wishes to provide to show that these grievances have been withdrawn, preferably written confirmation from the Union, by no later than June 5, 2015, after which date the Tribunal will make a decision with respect to the deferral of this Application.
Striking of Paragraphs
16This request will be dealt with at the outset of the hearing scheduled to begin on June 18, 2015 if not deferred.
order and directions
17The personal respondents are removed as parties to this Application and the style of cause is amended, accordingly.
18By no later than June 3, 2015, the applicant shall deliver to the respondent his Rule 16.1 disclosure by fax if he has not already done so, and shall file with the Tribunal by no later than June 4, 2015 another Form 23 Statement of Delivery confirming delivery, if he has not yet done so.
19By no later than June 5, 2015, the applicant is to provide any additional documentation to the Tribunal that he wishes to provide to confirm the withdrawal of the outstanding grievances 2014-0064-0051 and 2014-0064-0008.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of May, 2015.
“Signed by”
Dawn J. Kershaw
Vice-chair