Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Nadia Bell
Applicant
-and-
4th Dimension Technical Productions Inc. and Epiqvision Inc.
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Bell v. 4th Dimension Technical Productions Inc
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Nadia Bell, Applicant
Mikaila Greene, Counsel
4th Dimension Technical Productions Inc., Respondent
No one appearing
Epiqvision Inc., Respondent
No one appearing
1This is a Contravention Application filed under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that 4th Dimension Technical Productions Inc. did not meet its obligation to pay financial compensation to her as part of a settlement of an application filed under section 34 of the Code, Tribunal File No. 2016-23646-I. The applicant does not allege that Epiqvision Inc. contravened the settlement.
2On November 21, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, seeking an order to amend this Application, as well as application 2016-23646-I, to use the respondents’ proper legal names. The applicant submitted that she performed corporate searches and determined that the correct legal names of the respondents are 4th Dimension Technical Productions Inc. and Epiqvision Inc. The respondents have not responded to the request and the deadline for doing so has passed.
3Pursuant to the settlement, application 2016-23646-I is closed. Accordingly, the Tribunal is in my view functus officio with respect to this file and cannot entertain requests for orders with respect to it.
4This Application remains open, of course, and the Tribunal routinely grants amendment requests to reflect the correct names of corporate respondents. The request comes early in the proceedings and no prejudice has been identified.
5I note, however, that the applicant has specifically stated that there is no allegation that Epiqvision Inc. breached the settlement. As a result, it appears that Epiqvision Inc. has been named unnecessarily in this Application. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to direct the applicant to explain why she named Epiqvision Inc. in this Application and why Epiqvision Inc. should be required to participate in these proceedings.
Order
6The Tribunal orders as follows:
The request to amend this Application to use the respondents’ proper legal names is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly;
The request to amend application 2016-23646-I is denied;
Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision the applicant shall file submissions explaining why she named Epiqvision Inc. as a respondent and why Epiqvision Inc. should be required to participate in these proceedings;
The Tribunal shall schedule a two hour hearing by conference call to consider this Application; and,
The parties will deliver and file all arguably relevant documents upon which they intend to rely, witness lists if any, and a summary of their expected testimony; as well as expert reports, if any, no later than 35 days following the issuance of this Interim Decision.
7I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of December, 2016.
“Signed By”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair