HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rati Nagre
Applicant
-and-
Citigroup Fund Services Canada Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky
Indexed as: Nagre v. Citigroup Fund Services Canada Inc.
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request to remove the personal respondent, Michael Corbat, as a party to this Application.
2Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. The Tribunal considered the issue of whether to remove a personal respondent in Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 and Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31. The following factors emerged as helpful in assessing whether a personal respondent should be removed:
Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?
Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who sought to be removed?
Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?
Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?
Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?
3The respondents state that Mr. Corbat is the Chief Executive Officer of the corporate respondent’s parent company in New York and, as such, had “no dealings…of any kind” with the applicant. The respondents submit, in part, that there are no grounds on which Mr. Corbat could be found to be liable for the applicant’s claims of discrimination, and that even if this were the case, there is no issue that the corporate respondent could be held vicariously liable for such actions.
4The applicant submits that the request to remove Mr. Corbat as a personal respondent is “premature”, that he is “vicariously liable for the discriminatory conduct” against the applicant, and that keeping him as a party is “necessary” to a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the Application.
5I agree with the respondents’ submissions. In my view, given the relevant criteria, and in all of the circumstances, it is not necessary to involve Mr. Corbat in order to have a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the Application.
6The respondents’ request to remove Mr. Corbat as a respondent to the Application is therefore granted. The style of cause is amended accordingly.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of July, 2017.
“ Signed by”
Eban Bayefsky
Vice-chair