Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Home Featured Human rights tribunal rejects bid to add company president as ‘personal respondent’ in sex discrimination claim

Human rights tribunal rejects bid to add company president as ‘personal respondent’ in sex discrimination claim

by HR Law Canada

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has rejected a bid by a worker to add a personal respondent to her sex discrimination claim against her former employer.

The applicant, BR, made a request to add an individual — VB, the company’s president and majority shareholder — as a personal respondent to her claim against Amptek Electric Ltd.

The case centers on allegations of discrimination due to sex, including sexual harassment and pregnancy, as well as reprisal, in violation of the Human Rights Code. The applicant, who had initially filed the application against Amptek Electric Inc., sought to hold VB personally accountable, claiming his actions and decisions were influenced by his personal opinions.

The Tribunal’s decision was guided by established criteria and precedents, such as the Smyth v. Toronto Police Services and Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board cases, which outline the conditions under which an individual can be added as a respondent.

These conditions include whether the allegations could support a Code violation by the proposed respondent, if there’s a compelling reason to include them alongside an organization, and whether adding them would contribute to a fair resolution.

The Tribunal concluded that adding VB as a respondent was unnecessary for a just resolution of the case. The ruling emphasized that Amptek Electric Inc., already named in the application, is deemed liable for any actions VB, its majority shareholder and president, may have taken in the course of his employment that are alleged to violate the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found no compelling juridical reason to add VB as a personal respondent, stating that the corporation has the capacity to address and remedy the alleged infringement.

“The Corporation is deemed liable for any acts undertaken by (VB) that are the subject of this Application,” it said. “The current respondent has the ability to respond to and/or remedy the alleged Code violation.”

For more information, see Reeder v. Aptek Electric Ltd., 2024 HRTO 225 (CanLII).

You may also like