Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Marie-Eve Girard
Applicant
-and-
Mary-Am Corporation, Mary-Am Hospitality Corp. and Maryam Maids Inc.
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Girard v. Mary-Am Corporation
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Marie-Eve Girard, Applicant
Allisa Wu, Counsel
Mary-Am Group (Mary-Am Maid), Respondent
Daniel English, Paralegal
INTRODUCTION
1This is an Application filed on June 5, 2015, pursuant to 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 sex and reprisal.
2The hearing began on April 1, 2016. As part of his opening statement at the hearing, Raymond Zar, appearing on behalf of Mary-Am Group (Mary-Am Maid), indicated that Mary-Am Group is not a registered corporate entity and Mary-Am Maid is not an accurate name and is operationally inactive. The respondent had not raised this issue prior to the hearing.
3The applicant made a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) requesting the amendment of the respondent party. In essence, the RFOP is a request to amend the Application to:
a) remove Mary-Am Group (Mary-Am Maid) as a respondent;
b) add Mary-Am Corporation, Mary-Am Hospitality Corp. and Maryam Maids Inc. as respondents.
4The applicant filed written submissions on April 15, 2016 (“Request to Amend”) and the respondent filed a written response on April 29, 2916 (“the Response”).
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
Removing Mary-Am Group (Mary-Am Maid) as a Respondent
5Rule 1.7 (b) and (c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may “add or remove a party” and “allow any filing to be amended”.
6Mary-Am Group (Mary-Am Maid) is not a legal entity and is, therefore, not properly named as a party.
7Mary-Am Group (Mary-Am Maid) is therefore removed as a respondent to this Application and the style of cause is amended accordingly. See C.M. and J.H. by his next friend S.H. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1997.
Adding Mary-Am Corporation, Mary-Am Hospitality Corp. and Maryam Maids Inc. as Respondents
8The applicant maintains that the Request to Amend seeks to clarify and identify the proper corporate entities associated with the Mary-Am Group. She submits she will suffer significant prejudice if the Request to Amend is denied. She maintains that the proposed respondents are all interconnected and related to one another and are all associated with the Mary-Am Group. She argues that the proposed respondents cannot and should not be exempted from liability arising from the proceeding