Mary Caldwell v. Windigo Catering Limited Partnership, 2016 HRTO 367

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Caldwell

Applicant

-and-

Windigo Catering Limited Partnership (by its general partner, Windigo Ventures General Partner Ltd.)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: March 22, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 367

Indexed as: Caldwell v. Windigo Catering Limited Partnership

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mary Caldwell, Applicant

Jordan Lester, Counsel

Windigo Catering Limited Partnership by its general partner, Windigo Ventures General Partner Ltd.), Respondent

Chantelle Bryson, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request to add Goldcorp Canada Ltd. (“Goldcorp”) as a respondent to this Application.

2In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her in employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended. Specifically, she claimed that the respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodations for medical restrictions relating to her allergy to mould. The respondent is the applicant’s employer. Among other things, it provides catering services to a mine owned by Goldcorp.

3The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) requesting that the Tribunal add Goldcorp as a respondent. It submitted that it is appropriate for Goldcorp to be named as a respondent since it is the owner and operator of the Musselwhite Mine. As well, it appears that Goldcorp’s Occupational Health Nurse assesses and makes decisions in relation to the illnesses of the respondent’s employees.

4The applicant opposed the respondent’s request to add Goldcorp as a respondent. Goldcorp did not respond to the respondent’s RFOP.

5In my view, it is not appropriate to add Goldcorp as a respondent in this case. It is up to the applicant to determine the respondent(s) against whom she wishes to file her Application. She has not made any allegations against Goldcorp in her Application and she is not seeking a remedy against Goldcorp. Therefore, I do not find it appropriate to add Goldcorp as a respondent over her objections.

Order

6For these reasons, the respondent’s request to add Goldcorp as a respondent is denied.