Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Yashas Umesh Chandra Applicant
-and-
Garda Canada Security Corporation Respondent
-and-
The United Steelworkers Union Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: September 8, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1184 Indexed as: Chandra v. Garda Canada Security Corporation
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Yashas Umesh Chandra, Applicant Self-represented
Garda Canada Security Corporation, Respondent Mathieu Duceppe, Counsel
Daud Wafaq, Johnny Lam, Chirag Murabia and Jamie Rekker, Proposed Respondents Mathieu Duceppe, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant's request to add personal respondents to the Application.
2The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("request to add respondents") on May 18, 2016, seeking to add Daud Wafaq, account manager with the respondent, and Johnny Lam, Chirag Murabia and Jamie Rekker, all employees of the respondent, as personal respondents. The respondent and the proposed personal respondents filed a Response to the request to add respondents. At the request of the Tribunal, they also confirmed that the Response to the request to add respondents was filed on behalf of the respondent and the proposed personal respondents, and that the proposed personal respondents were all employees of the corporate respondent.
3The Tribunal held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513, that when determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:
- Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
- 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?
- Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
4The application of the first stage involves considering whether there are allegations made in the Application that could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code. At the second stage, the Tribunal applies the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board ("Persaud"), 2008 HRTO 31 at para. 5, which focus principally on whether there is an organization that is part of the proceeding and that is able to take responsibility for the conduct, and whether the conduct of the individual respondent is a central issue in the proceedings. At the third stage, the Tribunal may consider a variety of factors, including the effects on the hearing process of adding the proposed respondent, the reasons the proposed respondent was not named in the Application or Response, and prejudice to the other parties.
5Applying the considerations set out in Smyth and Persaud, above, I find that it would not be appropriate to add the four personal respondents that the applicant has sought to add to this Application. Even if I accept as true, for the purposes of this request, that there are allegations against these personal respondents that could support a finding that they have violated the Code, I find that there are no compelling reasons to add them as respondents. There is a corporate respondent in this matter, namely Garda Canada Security Corporation, and no issue has been raised about its vicarious liability for the conduct of the proposed personal respondents. There is no issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to remedy alleged Code infringements, including monetary remedies. Finally, I find that the applicant has not shown that he would be prejudiced if the request is denied.
6For these reasons, the applicant's request to add Daud Wafaq, Johnny Lam, Chirag Murabia and Jamie Rekker as personal respondents to the Application is denied.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of September, 2016.
"Signed by"
Josée Bouchard Vice-chair