Skip to main content

African Canadian Legal Clinic v. Legal Aid Ontario

Image
By

African Canadian Legal Clinic v. Legal Aid Ontario, 2016 HRTO 925 (CanLII)

Date:2016-07-14
Docket:2015-21366-I
Citation:African Canadian Legal Clinic v. Legal Aid Ontario, 2016 HRTO 925 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gshpp>, retrieved on 2017-06-02
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

______________________________________________________________________
B E T W E E N:
African Canadian Legal Clinic
Applicant
-and-

Legal Aid Ontario
Respondent

______________________________________________________________________

INTERIM DECISION
______________________________________________________________________

Adjudicator:             Jo-Anne Pickel

Date:                          July 14, 2016     

File Number:            2015-21366-I     
                                   
Citation:                    2016 HRTO 925
                                   
Indexed as:              African Canadian Legal Clinic v. Legal Aid Ontario
______________________________________________________________________


WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS


)



)


African Canadian Legal Clinic, Applicant
)
)

Margaret Parsons, Counsel









)


Legal Aid Ontario and Bob Ward, Respondents
)
)

Alix Herber, Counsel


































































[1]           This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request to remove the personal respondent as a party to this Application.
[2]           In the Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against it because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against it during lease expense negotiations in the Spring of 2014, among other things through the discriminatory application of leasing guidelines.
REQUEST TO REMOVE PERSONAL RESPONDENT
[3]           The applicant named Legal Aid Ontario as an organizational respondent. It also named the organizational respondent’s President and Chief Executive Officer as a personal respondent to the Application. By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), the respondents requested that the Tribunal remove the personal respondent from the Application. The applicant opposed this request.
[4]           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 (CanLII) at para. 42, the Tribunal cautioned that the unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as it serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings. 
[5]           In determining whether it is appropriate to remove a personal respondent, the Tribunal has consistently applied the following factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 (CanLII) at para. 5:
1.   Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?
2.   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?
3.   Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?
4.   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?
5.   Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?
[6]           The respondents submit that:
a.   The corporate respondent is able to respond to all allegations and would be vicariously liable for the conduct of the personal respondent;
b.   The personal respondent had no direct dealings or communications with the applicant with respect to the leasing issues giving rise to the Application;
c.   The corporate respondent is able to respond or remedy any alleged violation of the Code;
d.   There are no compelling reasons to continue the Application against the personal respondent because his individual conduct is not at issue and there are no specific allegations about his conduct that would warrant his inclusion as a party;
e.   The applicant would suffer no prejudice if the personal respondent was removed. The applicant is not seeking a remedy only the personal respondent can provide and the Application does not include allegations relating to actions taken by the personal respondent in his personal capacity.
[7]           The main submissions made by the applicant in favour of retaining the personal respondent are:
a.   the personal respondent is the directing mind of the corporate respondent;
b.   the corporate respondent would not be liable for any acts or omissions of the personal respondent taken outside the scope of his grant of authority; and
c.   the applicant has sought an apology from the personal respondent as a remedy in this case.
[8]           Applying the factors set out in Persaud, above, I find that the personal respondent should be removed from this Application. I see no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent. While the applicant claims that there are real issues as to the organizational respondent’s liability for the conduct of the personal respondent, the organizational respondent has conceded that it would be vicariously liable for the personal respondent’s conduct. Although the applicant claims that the personal respondent’s conduct is a central issue in these proceedings, the only reference to the personal respondent in the Application is a sentence that states that he approved all decisions of the organizational respondent. It its Response to the respondents’ RFOP, the applicant stated that the personal respondent sent letters directly to the applicant and other clinics about the a Transformation Project and cost cutting measures. In my view, this conduct would not give rise to personal liability under the Code as they are actions taken within the course of the personal respondent’s employment. The applicant has pointed to no actions taken by the personal respondent that could arguably be seen as exceeding the scope of his employment responsibilities.
[9]           The circumstances of this case are distinguishable from those in African Canadian Legal Clinic v. Legal Aid Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1255 (CanLII) as that case involved allegations of racial profiling. The Tribunal found that, if the applicant’s allegations of racial profiling were established, it could give rise to a remedy against the personal respondents. The circumstances of this case are very different. This Application deals with alleged differential treatment in the application of leasing guidelines and the conduct of leasing negotiations. In my view, none of the actions alleged by the applicant would give rise to a personal remedy against the personal respondent.
[10]        Even if the personal respondent is a directing mind of the organizational respondent, there must be a compelling reason to retain him as a personal respondent. In this case, there is nothing in the Application that could reasonably support the claim that the personal respondent was acting beyond the scope of his duties as president and chief executive officer of the organizational respondent when he carried out the allegedly discriminatory actions in this case.
[11]        Finally, I find that no prejudice would be caused to the applicant by removing the personal respondent since the organizational respondent would be deemed liable for any breaches of the Code arising from alleged actions of the personal respondent in this case. As well, the only remedy the applicant seeks from the personal respondent is an apology which is a remedy that this Tribunal has consistently declined to award. See, for example, Turnbull v. Famous Players 2001 CanLII 26228 (ON HRT), 2001 CanLII 26228 (HRTO); Abdallah v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2008 HRTO 230 (CanLII) at para. 110; and Welykyi v. Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc., 2016 HRTO 299 (CanLII).
ORDER
[12]        For the above reasons, the respondents’ request to remove the personal respondent is granted. The style of cause shall be amended accordingly.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of July, 2016.
“Signed By”

__________________________________
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

See us on Angel Ronan Entwerfen(TM). We are also SDGCK now. We help Black people. Call to contact us for assistance at our Advice Centre. We help you via the internet. Call and leave us a message at 647-485-5206. Its important that you leave a message. You do not have to make a donation but one is requested. Its free to Jehovah Witness members and is more detailed and thorough than any other service. We can hold your documents and assist you through the whole process. We help White, Black, Yellow, Red and Brown people. Ask for Pam or Lineeka. Write us at info.angelronan@mail.com.

By
   We help Black people. Call to contact us for assistance at our Advice Centre.  We help you via the internet.  Call and leave us a message at 647-485-9558. Its important  that you leave a message.  You do not have to make a donation but one is requested.  Its free to Jehovah Witness members and is more  detailed and thorough than any other service.  We can hold your documents and assist you through the whole process.    We help White, Black,  Yellow,  Red and Brown people.   Ask for Pam or Liteeka or Corinne.  
Post a Comment
Read more

Click here. Lets make North America great again. Angel Ronan Entwerfen Journal: Creolism vs Certainty: Creolism vs Certainty; an Angel Ronan Toshokan Report # 8. Written by Warren Lyon and Seiehaeh Mottha with notes from Eiam Dawn and Craig Daniels. August 7th, 2025. There is a current member of the US House of Representatives and also the the Congress who has not received any income support benefit. There is a member of the Canadian parliament who has not received any income support benefit; probably from Toronto or Peel. The governor of Virginia( part Dutch and part American Native) who was later appointed the Governor of Jamaica arrived at Kingston Harbour in 1664 with his assistant from Vermont. They were both relatively young but the servant was a boy really! about 16 years old but he was capably trained for all tasks. They travelled to Jamaica and when they arrived and got settled the governor cut the boy's foot off to be sure that the boy could not leave and would always be there to provide help and assistance, a part of the governors methods, making the boy kind of a nameless faceless automaton that needs you...just as much as you need him to help you, be there to help you and where would he go, what would he do? But the boy is only one person. Maybe ten are better than one since if one falls down the other nine can help you up. The boy buried his emotions and learned it was best to stay pleasant and never look like anyone had done something to him. What is it like working for someone that you really do detest but you have few options to do anything else; the way this culture works? Nonetheless, he learned to find a passive aggressive way to feel heard, acknowledged or equal by spitting in the food he cooked and served to his employer or any drinks he was asked to prepare so that he could say"...I am you...and you are me" so when you are with your wife or servant girl the odds are you know we could say to the child "...you know I could be your.." and we all have to work hard. Eventually, the governor and the servant boy became washed out by a storm and they learned how to adapt and survive together...as friends but also as servant and master. The governor tended to rely on that one servant as the only one he really knows. The boy was the only one he really knows. He is just a boy. As a Vermontonian, he expected payment for work. The payment did not happen but he was given compliments and reassurance that he would always be his....boy. The man also cut his face to make him kind of faceless and so the boy put wax on the spot. The boy tried to plan a wedding celebration with the servant girl like what he read in the bible and the marooned governor got very angry and behaved badly until the girl his and then the governor said its just that he needed all the boy's attention, needed his help. The governor burned the servant's Vermont citizenship documents to make him kind of nameless. The boy learned other ways to express his feelings. Expression is everything. Slavery was considered unnatural by the Romans under Justinian law. See the "Corpus Juris Civilis". Steven Hawking agrees. Money and Labour The motive behind commerce is money. The motive behind the 14th amendment is commerce and money. We want everyone to benefit equally when they have contributed equally. There is no other way. We could accept that all kinds of human labor became increasingly redundant due to new labor saving technology. We also save money on what the machine does for us. Now that there are fewer people working due to machinery doing work, we find we have less products sold. This is ironic as the products were made by machines with intent to make more profit. So, we decided to give everybody a little money, not a lot, to be sure we make the profit. The little money we give everyone is taken from consumer tax dollars. The money used to retrofit the factories with robots and machines is also taken from consumer tax dollars. When you have black children and white children, you want them to benefit equally in your country and also on your golf course. That is what a good father would do or would he instill a White hegemony since in his story book from the 1700's in Jamaica, he did not really see you in the book as a Moor Berber Priest in England, Italy, in France or Holland or as the architect. But, I suppose its just a book. All we are trying to find is( ..not 11000 votes but...) 11 cents a minute per citizen( 20 cents is preferred ) in North America as the minimum , enforced basic and standard amount of income support. We adapt new phone technology, home appliance technology, food preparation technology where you can just add watts or water to make the pudding or the Cake and we also adapt new humans-less AI work technology and so we adapt money as technology so we can acquire all the other various technologies that make life comfortable. Money as technology is the priority above and beyond all other technologies. Money is technology. In quick summary, watching the US presidencies and American political news television is like seeing a Court jester distracting you from the real issues like comparably equal income support money across North America to assist in balancing out consumer stimulus across the country and to ensure effective profit returns in all states or markets. This is while he hides his own intrinsic pain.

By
  Click here.    Lets make North America great again.    Angel Ronan Entwerfen Journal: Creolism vs Certainty:    Creolism vs Certainty; an Angel Ronan Toshokan Report # 8. Written by Warren Lyon  and Seiehaeh Mottha   with notes from Eiam Dawn and Craig Daniels.   August 7th, 2025.  There is a current member of the US House of Representatives and also the the Congress who has not received any income support benefit. There is a member of the Canadian parliament who has not received any income support benefit; probably from Toronto or Peel. The governor of Virginia( part Dutch and part American Native) who was later appointed the Governor of Jamaica arrived at Kingston Harbour in 1664 with his assistant from Vermont.  They were both relatively young but the servant was a boy really! about 16 years old but he was capably trained for all tasks. They travelled to Jamaica and when they arrived and got settled the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Angel Ronan's New York Contact!

By
Post a Comment
Read more