Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Erika MacLennan
Applicant
-and-
Handyman Painters Toronto Ltd. c.o.b Home Painters Toronto
and Brian Young
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jacek Janczur
Indexed as: MacLennan v. Handyman Painters Toronto Ltd.
Written Submissions
Erika MacLennan, Applicant
Anthony Simone, Counsel
Handyman Painters Toronto Ltd. cob Home Painters Toronto and Brian Young, Respondents
Self-represented
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability, creed, sex, family status, age and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2The Application names an organizational respondent and an individual respondent. This Interim Decision deals with the respondents' request to for the individual respondent to be removed as a party to the Application and the respondents' request for a summary hearing.
Removal of Personal Respondent
3The individual respondent is the owner/operator of the organizational respondent. The applicant was employed by the organizational respondent as a Human Resources Generalist for a period of approximately two months until her employment was terminated.
4The applicant alleges, among other things, that the individual respondent threatened her with dismissal when she attempted to discuss his discriminatory practices related to hiring and treatment of employees that included screening out women with children and young people, as well as discriminatory customer profiling practices that negatively impacted on women.
5The applicant alleges that the individual respondent resisted the development and implementation of non-discriminatory policies and practices. She further alleges that she was bullied and harassed by the individual respondent by being undermined and excluded as well as being subjected to offensive jokes orally and in writing.
6Eventually the applicant was terminated which she alleges was a reprisal for refusing to comply with the individual respondent's discriminatory practices.
7The respondents plead that the individual respondent should be removed as a party to the application in accordance with Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure because there is no issue with respect to the ability the organizational respondent to provide a remedy for any alleged infringement of the Code. The respondents cite the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Naming Respondents which advises applicants that it is not usually necessary to name a manager as a respondent. The respondents further state that there would be no prejudice to the applicant by removing the individual respondent as a party to the Application.
8The applicant contends that there is a compelling reason to continue proceeding against the individual respondent as the individual conduct of the personal respondent is a central issue in the applicant's allegations. The applicant points out that the individual respondent is the owner/operator of the organizational respondent, and that the applicant's allegations are specifically against the individual respondent and the remarks, actions and reprisals made by him against the applicant.
9In R.M. v. Toronto Police Service Board, 2013 HRTO 1472, the Tribunal stated at paragraph 11 that:
Tribunal jurisprudence has held that it is appropriate to continue a proceeding as against a respondent party where it is the conduct of the individual respondent that is a central issue. See Lagana v. Saputo Dairy Products Canada, 2010 HRTO 155, and Bianca v. Maritime Travel, 2010 HRTO 1077.
10All of the applicant's allegations relate exclusively to the conduct of the individual respondent during the period of her employment. No other person is implicated in the applicant's allegations, and if the applicant is successful in establishing a breach of the Code she may obtain a remedial order against him. Accordingly, in this case, it is appropriate to allow the Application to proceed against the individual respondent.
Request for Summary Hearing
11The request for a summary hearing is denied.
Order
12The request to remove the individual respondent as a party to the Application is denied.
13The request to hold a summary hearing is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of November, 2017.
"Signed by"
Jacek Janczur
Vice-chair