Legere v. Graduate Student Association of McMaster University, 2016 HRTO 4

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexandra Legere

Applicant

-and-

Graduate Student Association of McMaster University and Kevin LaFontaine

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: January 4, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 4 Indexed as: Legere v. Graduate Student Association of McMaster University

APPEARANCES

Alexandra Legere, Applicant Self-represented

Graduate Student Association of McMaster University and Kevin LaFontaine, Respondents Nicole Godfrey, 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”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2The respondent filed a Request for an Order removing Kevin LaFontaine as an individual respondent to the Application. The respondent relies on the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31. The applicant opposes the Request.

3In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 (“Persaud”), the Tribunal set out a number of factors to consider in determining the question of the removal of individual respondents:

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?

4Unlike the facts in Persaud, Mr. LaFontaine is not alleged to be acting as an “instrument” of the organizational respondent by simply carrying out a decision of the organization. Mr. LaFontaine is alleged to have engaged in discrimination as the person who made the decision to terminate the applicant. What role, if any, Mr. LaFontaine played in the events leading to the applicant’s termination is a question of fact to be determined by the hearing adjudicator on the basis of the evidence. If an infringement is found, it may be appropriate to make an order against Mr. LaFontaine in his personal capacity as well as the organizational respondent. Accordingly I decline to exercise my discretion to remove Mr. LaFontaine as an individual respondent to this Application.

Order

5The Request of the respondents is denied.

6I am not seized.