HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Larry Thomas Chrysler
Applicant
-and-
Aditya Birla Minacs
Respondent
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Chrysler v. Aditya Birla Minacs
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
655 Bay Street, 14^th^ Floor
Toronto ON M7A 2A3
Phone 416-326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 / Fax 416-326-2199 / Toll Free1-866-355-6099
TTY 416- 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168
E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca
Website www.hrto.ca
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 20, 2008. At that time he was not represented. He named his employer as the respondent. A Response (Form 2) was filed on September 29, 2008.
2On September 29, 2008, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) indicating that he wished to amend his Application, add two personal respondents, Gus Gilkas and Patty Clynch, and add the Human Rights Legal Support Centre as his representative. He also provided the Tribunal with an amended Application, reflecting the proposed changes. The amended Application clarifies the nature of the alleged discrimination and includes a claim for general damages. The Request for Order During Proceedings was served on the respondent and the proposed personal respondents, together with a copy of the amended Application.
3Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Applications under Part IV of the Code (the “Rules”) provides:
Unless the Tribunal directs otherwise, parties responding to the written Request for Order, must complete the Response to Request for Order (“Response to Request”) in Form 11 and deliver a copy to all other parties and file it with the Tribunal not later than fourteen (14) days after the Request for Order was delivered.
4To date, the Tribunal has not received a Response to Request (Form 11) from either the respondent or the proposed personal respondents.
5I note that the amended Application relies on essentially the same information as the original Application. The proposed personal respondents are employees of the respondent. While the personal respondents were not named in the original Application, the allegations about them in the original Application and the amended Application are essentially the same.
6In the circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to allow the applicant to amend the Application and to add Gus Gilkas and Patty Clynch as respondents.
7The Applicant does not require the consent of the Tribunal to permit the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to represent him.
ORDER
8The Tribunal makes the following order:
The amended Application is accepted and replaces the original Application.
Gus Gilkas and Patty Clynch are added as personal respondents.
Having regard to Rule 8 of the Tribunal’s Rules, the personal respondents have 35 days from the date of receiving this decision to file a response to the amended Application should they wish to do so.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd^ day of October, 2008
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-Chair