Dautey v. Hydro One, 2015 HRTO 724

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Isaac Dautey

Applicant

-and-

Hydro One

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: June 2, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 724

Indexed as: Dautey v. Hydro One

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Isaac Dautey, Applicant

Self-represented

Hydro One, Respondent

Dana McDonald, Counsel

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

2A hearing of this Application is scheduled for June 19, 2015.

3The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) dated April 14, 2015 asking to amend the requested remedy in his Application and to add GC and WL as individual respondents. This Interim Decision addresses those requests.

request to amend the remedy

4It would appear that the applicant is seeking to amend the financial compensation that he requested in his Application. It is unclear whether the amended amount is addition to or in lieu of the amount set out in the Application.

5The remedial purpose of the Code is to put the applicant into the position that he would have been save for the discrimination. The applicant has not provided any factual support to amend the remedy he requested in his Application.

6For these reasons, the applicant’s request to amend the remedy set out in his Application is denied.

Request to add individual respondents

7The applicant’s RFOP also requests that GC and WL be added as respondents.

8The applicant has not provided any reasons or particulars to support the adding of GC and WL as personal respondents at this late date in the proceedings. I assume that GC and WL are employees of the corporate respondent. That being said, the reasoning in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 at para 42, as cited in the Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 382 denying the applicant’s earlier attempt to add a respondent to the Application, would militate against adding GC and WL as personal respondents to the Application.

9For these reasons the applicant’s request to add GC and WL as respondents is denied.