Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Patrina Rampersad

Applicant

-and-

Consumer Debtor Protection of Canada; Abdul Kornes and Sedef Karansu Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: June 7, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 775 Indexed as: Rampersad v. Consumer Debtor Protection of Canada

[1] The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request to remove two individual respondents as parties to this Application and add an organizational respondent.

[2] In her Application the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

[3] On January 8, 2016 the respondent Consumer Debtor Protection of Canada which was not originally identified by the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to remove the two individual respondents identified by the applicant and to be added as the sole respondent. Although afforded an opportunity to do so the applicant did not respond to the Request. The individual respondents in their Response (Form 2) agree that the organizational respondent is the only appropriate respondent.

[4] The Request is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly.

[5] Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 at para. 42, the Tribunal set out the general principles that apply to this issue:

The unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Code, a corporation is deemed to be liable for “any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent”. Where there is no issue as to the ability of a corporate respondent to respond to or remedy an alleged Code infringement and no issue raised as to a corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the actions of an individual who is sought to be added as a personal respondent, then in my view the individual ought not be added as a personal respondent in the absence of some compelling juridical reason. A compelling juridical reason may exist, for example, where it is the individual conduct of a proposed personal respondent that is a central issue as opposed to actions which are more in the nature of following organizational practices or policies or where the nature of the alleged conduct of a proposed personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found.

[6] The Request is granted in part. In her Application the applicant alleges that the respondents terminated her employment when she was unable to return to work for several days following a motor vehicle accident. The applicant alleges that the decision to dismiss her as made by Abdul Kornes, who she identifies as the Chief Executive Officer of the organizational respondent and Sedef Karansu, identified as the head of human resources. The respondents advise that the roles of these individuals are reversed and state that Abdul Kornes was not involved in the decision to dismiss the applicant from her employment.

[7] The respondents assert that the applicant was dismissed when she was absent without leave and without explanation. The respondents do not advise who of its management group made the decision. In all of the circumstances I find it most fair, just and expeditious at this preliminary stage to add the organizational respondent as requested but defer the request to remove the personal respondent to a later stage of the proceeding. Clearly the organizational respondent as the applicant’s former employer is an appropriate respondent in the circumstances, however given the vagueness of the individual respondents’ Response, adopted by the organizational respondent, it is not clear who made the decision to dismiss the applicant. In the absence of that information it is not appropriate to remove either personal respondent at this early stage of the proceeding. After the parties have made their productions to each other and provided witness statements for their witnesses this issue may be addressed again by the adjudicator assigned to the hearing.

[8] The case should proceed to the next stage of the Tribunal process, a one day hearing in Toronto.

[9] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 7^th^ day of June, 2016.

“signed by”

David Muir Vice-chair