Pearson v. George Brown College, 2015 HRTO 936

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Andrea Pearson

Applicant

-and-

George Brown College

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: July 16, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 936

Indexed as: Pearson v. George Brown College

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrea Pearson, Applicant

Self-represented

George Brown College, Respondent

Patricia Murray, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on October 15, 2014 alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request for removal of Phyllis Vasquez as a personal respondent. For this Interim Decision, I have considered the applicant’s Response to Request for Order filed on July 4, 2015.

3As stated in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at para. 5, this Tribunal applies the following factors when considering requests to remove a personal respondent:

1. Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?

2. Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who sought to be removed?

3. Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?

4. 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?

5. Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?

4With regard to the first three factors: there is a corporate respondent, George Brown College, alleged to be liable based upon the alleged conduct of Ms. Vasquez; George Brown has confirmed that it is prepared to assume liability in respect of any actions taken by Ms. Vasquez towards or affecting the applicant; and there is no issue as to the ability of George Brown College to respond to or remedy the alleged infringements.

5In relation to the fourth factor, in my view there is no compelling reason to continue this proceeding as against Ms. Vasquez personally. I appreciate that it is Ms. Vasquez’s conduct and actions that form the basis of the alleged infringements of the applicant’s rights under the Code. But these actions were all taken by Ms. Vasquez in her capacity as program coordinator for the ASL – Interpreter program offered by the College and as a professor at the College, and generally relate to Ms. Vasquez’s response to the applicant’s requests for accommodation of her disability. In my view, these are not the kind of circumstances where there is a compelling reason for this proceeding to continue against Ms. Vasquez personally.

6With regard to the fifth factor, no specific prejudice has been raised by the applicant as a result of Ms. Vasquez’s removal as a personal respondent.

ORDER

7For the foregoing reasons, I hereby order that Phyllis Vasquez be removed as a personal respondent in this proceeding, and the title of proceeding has been amended accordingly.