HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jasmyn Renaud
Applicant
-and-
Your Fit MindBody Inc. and Tammy Robinson
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky
Indexed as: Renaud v. Your Fit MindBody Inc.
INTRODUCTION
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to add her former employer, Your Fit MindBody Inc., as a respondent to the Application, and to amend the remedies she seeks in the matter.
2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the personal respondent hired her to work at her company, the proposed organizational respondent, and fired her at the end of her first day of work because of, and without accommodating, her disability.
3The applicant also seeks to amend her Application to include the following remedies:
(1) Damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect in the amount of $25,000.00;
(2) An order requiring the proposed organizational respondent to retain an expert in Ontario human rights law to create a comprehensive human rights policy that is consistent with Ontario human rights law, including a section on the duty to accommodate employees with disabilities; and to provide this policy to the Applicant for her approval;
(3) An order requiring the proposed organizational respondent to distribute the above policy to all current employees, owners and management and all new employees upon hire and to prominently post the policy in the proposed organizational respondent’s place of business;
(4) An order requiring the proposed organizational respondent to prominently post Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Code cards in its place of business; and
(5) An order requiring the proposed organizational respondent to retain an expert in Ontario human rights law to provide comprehensive human rights training, including a section on the duty to accommodate employees with disabilities, to all employees, owners and management and to train all new employees within 30 days of being hired, and to provide the contents of the training to the Applicant for her approval.
4The personal respondent was advised of these requests but did not provide her position.
5A hearing on the merits of this Application is scheduled to commence on November 27, 2017, in Ottawa.
DECISION
(i) The Request to Add a Respondent
6When determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal considers the following three questions:
Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
See Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513.
7The application of the first stage involves considering whether there are allegations made in the Application that could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code. The second stage does not apply in this case as the proposed respondent is not an individual or personal respondent. At the third stage, the Tribunal may consider a variety of factors, including the effects on the hearing process of adding the proposed respondent, the reasons the proposed respondent was not named in the Application or Response, and any prejudice to the other parties.
8Applying the factors set out above, I find that the proposed respondent should be added to the Application. The applicant has made allegations in relation to which both the current and proposed respondents could be held liable. It would be fair to add the proposed respondent because the applicant was self-represented at the time she filed her Application, effective remedial orders could largely only be made against the proposed organisational respondent, and the proposed respondent would suffer no prejudice to be added at this stage of the proceedings since it is owned by the personal respondent and has, therefore, been aware of the Application throughout.
(ii) The Request to Amend the Application
9In determining requests to amend applications, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend, and the prejudice to the respondent. See, for example, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.
10Having considered these factors, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The proposed remedies do not change the essential character of the Application, they flow directly from the alleged actions and potential liability of the two respondents, the applicant was self-represented at the time she filed her Application and filed her request to amend shortly after retaining counsel and well before the hearing, and the respondents will not suffer any prejudice as the personal respondent owns the corporate respondent and has been aware of the nature of the allegations throughout the proceeding.
ORDER
11For the above reasons, I make the following Orders:
(i) Your Fit MindBody Inc. is added as a respondent to the Application and the style of cause is amended accordingly.
(ii) The Application is amended to include the remedies noted in paragraph 3 of this Interim Decision.
(iii) The Tribunal shall deliver to Your Fit MindBody Inc. a copy of the Application, the personal respondent's Response and the applicant’s Reply, along with this Interim Decision.
(iv) Your Fit MindBody Inc. shall file a Response to the Application (Form 2) not later than 35 days after a copy of the Application is sent to it by the Tribunal. The applicant may file an amended Reply to reply to the Response filed by Your Fit MindBody Inc. within 14 days of receiving the Response from Your Fit MindBody Inc.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of September, 2017.
“Signed by”
Eban Bayefsky
Vice-chair