Benoit v. Soler D & V Licensing Inc., 2016 HRTO 1429

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jo-Anne Benoit

Applicant

-and-

Soler D & V Licensing Inc., Manuel Soler and Alex Soler

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: November 3, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1429

Indexed as: Benoit v. Soler D & V Licensing Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jo-Anne Benoit, Applicant

Jamie-Lee Leblanc, Representative

Soler D & V Licensing Inc., Respondent

Alex Soler, Representative

1This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s request that the Tribunal remove the personal respondents from the Application.

2In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). In particular, she alleged that the respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodations that would permit her access to a Service Ontario location operated by the respondent.

Request to Remove Personal Respondents

3The respondent requested that the Tribunal remove the two owners of the corporate respondent who the applicant had named as personal respondents to the Application.

4Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 at para. 42, the Tribunal cautioned that the unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as it serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings.

5In determining whether it is appropriate to remove a personal respondent, the Tribunal has consistently applied the following factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at para. 5:

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?

6The applicant has advised that the location where the corporate respondent had been located is currently up for lease. This may raise an issue regarding the corporate respondent’s ability to respond to or remedy a Code infringement, if one were found in this case. In these circumstances, I find that the decision as to whether to remove the personal respondents is best made by the adjudicator assigned to hear the case on its merits.

order

7For the above reasons, the respondents’ request to remove Manuel Soler and Alex Soler as personal respondents is denied at this stage. This is not a finding that these two individuals would be liable for any alleged violation of the Code in this case. The adjudicator assigned to the case will be in a better position to determine liability if a Code violation is established.