Joseph Romualdi v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2016 HRTO 584

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Joseph Romualdi Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: May 3, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 584 Indexed As: Romualdi v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

1This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to add an additional respondent, C.M., and to amend the Application

2The respondent has responded to the Request and consents to the amendment on the following conditions:

a. That the respondent(s) be afforded a full opportunity to respond to the amended Application;

b. That the applicant not be permitted to further amend his Application in so far as it relates to the on-going issues relating to his return to work.

3In relation to the condition in paragraph 2(b) the respondent argues that the written pleadings in this case should be closed at this stage but it acknowledges that it may be appropriate at the discretion of the hearing adjudicator that further issues arising in the course of the parties ongoing efforts to return the applicant to work be dealt with in the event that this case goes to hearing.

4The applicant’s Request is granted on consent and with the conditions set out above. In addition, the applicant is directed to deliver and file an amended Application containing the new allegations set out in his Request. The respondent will have 25 days from its receipt of the amended Application to respond with its amended Response.

The Applicant’s Request to Add a Party

5The Request to add a respondent is denied.

6In arguing against the applicant’s Request to add a party, the respondent relied on the factors that Tribunal has considered when being asked to remove a party. See Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14, and Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31.

7I agree that those factors are appropriate applied in this circumstances. I would also observe that the allegations made by the applicant against this individual appear to have all been in the course of his employment as a manager of the applicant. The actions complained of are in fact exercises of management likely in accordance with advice from others in the organization. That does not mean that these actions may not have been discriminatory, but there is no compelling juridical reason to add the proposed respondent.

Orders

8The applicant’s Request is granted in part as follows:

a. The Request to amend is granted subject to the conditions set out above.

b. The applicant will deliver and file an amended Application including his amendments as set out in his Request within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

c. The respondent will deliver and file an amended Response within 25 days of receiving the applicant’s amended Application.

d. The applicant’s Request to add a respondent is denied.

9I am not seized of this case.