Donna Polgar

The applicant filed a human rights application naming two organizational respondents and two unnamed individual respondents (Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2).

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the organizational respondents to disclose the names and contact information of the individual respondents.

The organizational respondents opposed the request, arguing the individuals were not properly named as respondents.

The Tribunal held that arguments regarding whether the individuals were proper respondents were premature and ordered the organizational respondents to provide the identities and contact information of the unnamed individuals.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour against McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. The respondent requested that the franchisee, Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc., be substituted as the proper respondent.

Given the respondent's consent and the applicant's failure to file submissions on the issue, the Tribunal removed the franchisor and substituted the franchisee as the respondent.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend its Response to correct inadvertent errors in two paragraphs of its narrative.

The self-represented applicant opposed the request, arguing it was an attempt to hide the truth.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the hearing was months away, disclosure had not yet been exchanged, and the amendments were limited in scope.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to address the proper identity of the respondent, as the restaurant in question was a franchise.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order to amend its Response to include a new narrative and correct its legal name, having recently retained counsel.

The applicant opposed the amendment, arguing the new information was false.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the early stage of the proceedings, the lack of prejudice to the applicant, and that credibility issues could be addressed at the hearing.