Navodiya v. No Frills #3912, 2017 HRTO 1032

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ashrafali Navodiya

Applicant

-and-

No Frills #3912

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: August 10, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1032

Indexed as: Navodiya v. No Frills #3912

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

No Frills #3912, Respondent

Christopher Karpacz, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s request to add two additional parties to the Application.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of race, ethnic origin and colour contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant’s main allegation was that he was assaulted by a uniformed security guard and another individual who appear to be employees of companies that provide security and loss prevention services to the respondent. The applicant also alleged that one of the respondent’s employees refused to provide a refund for some damaged produce he returned to the store.

3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), the respondent requested the addition of Wincon Security and Elite Protection Group Inc. (“Elite Protection”) as “potential parties” to the Application. The respondent submitted that the two individuals who the applicant claimed assaulted him are employed by Wincon Security and/or Elite Protection. Wincon Security is a security company that provided loss prevention services to the respondent at the time of the incident alleged in the Application. Elite Protection is a security company that provided security services to the respondent at the time of the incident alleged in the Application. The respondent submitted that these two companies will potentially be affected by the Application.

4Neither the applicant, Wincon Security nor Elite Protection responded to the respondent’s RFOP and the time for doing so has passed.

Decision

5It is not clear whether the respondent is seeking to add the Wincon Security and Elite Protection as respondents to the Application. In the circumstances, I do not find it appropriate to add these companies as respondents in this case. Although there might be a basis to find a violation of the Code by these parties if they had been named in the Application, it is for an applicant to determine who he or she wishes to name as a respondent. There is no process under the Code for a respondent to make the kind of third party claim that is permitted under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

6In this case, the applicant only named No Frills #3912 as a respondent. Therefore, the Application will proceed against this respondent. A key issue in the case will be whether the respondent may be deemed liable under s. 46.3 of the Code for the actions of the two individuals referred to in the Application.

7To the extent that the respondent was simply seeking to add the two companies as affected parties, I agree that the two companies may have an interest in this proceeding, as the main allegations in the Application concern two of their employees.

order

8For the above reasons, it is not appropriate to add Wincon Security and Elite Protection Group Inc. as respondents to this Application. A copy of this Interim Decision will be delivered to each of these two companies. If either company wishes to intervene in this Application, they must file a Request to Intervene (Form 5).