Glaze v. Woodbine Entertainment Group, 2009 HRTO 1018

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hilka Glaze

Applicant

-and-

Woodbine Entertainment Group, Sheila Galloro, Veena Rampersad and Gord Canning

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: July 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1018

Indexed as: Glaze v. Woodbine Entertainment Group

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Hilka Glaze, Applicant ) Cecil Norman, ) Representative

Woodbine Entertainment Group, ) Brian O’Byrne, Counsel Respondent )

1This is an Application received September 4, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) in this matter is scheduled for September 17, 2009.

2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to add a party and obtain an extension to file documents after the deadline for filing documents has passed.

Request to add a party

3The applicant seeks to add Christine Nadeau, the former Director of Human Resources of the corporate respondent, as a personal respondent. Ms. Nadeau had been named as a personal respondent in the original complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on May 13, 2005. However, Ms. Nadeau had left the employ of the corporate respondent at the time the Application was filed and the applicant was not able to locate her. In an earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 485, the Tribunal removed Ms. Nadeau as a personal respondent from these proceedings since the applicant was unable to deliver the Application to her.

4The transitional provisions of the Code are intended to deal with the subject matter of complaints filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008. In my view, the legislative intention as set out in the transition provisions is that section 53(3) applications should be dealt with in a highly expeditious manner. To that end, the Tribunal developed Rules to foster a fair, just and highly expeditious process. In particular Rule 6.3 states:

Applications made in accordance with these Rules must be based on the subject matter of the complaint or amended complaint filed at the Commission and the Tribunal will not entertain preliminary requests to add grounds, expand the subject matter of the complaint or add parties to the Application.

5In my view, it would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding to permit the applicant to add the requested person at this stage of the proceeding. While Ms. Nadeau had been originally named as a personal respondent, the Tribunal removed her. The hearing is to proceed in two months time and the addition of Ms. Nadeau has the potential to derail the scheduled hearing. Further, in the original complaint and the applicant’s statement of additional facts, Ms. Nadeau is not named. There appear to be no allegations against her.

6The applicant’s request to add Ms. Nadeau as a party to this Application is denied.

Request for Extension

7The applicant was directed to file a statement of additional facts and remedy and disclose all arguably relevant documents by June 10, 2009. On June 24, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for an order seeking an extension of time to submit these materials because the applicant had been unwell for several weeks. On July 7, the applicant filed a statement of additional facts and remedy and made disclosure of documents to the respondents.

8The respondents oppose the Request for an extension on the basis that the applicant’s explanation for the delay is not sufficient. However, the respondents did not point to any prejudice suffered as a result of the late filing of the material, two months prior to the scheduled hearing. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will grant the extension and accept the materials filed on July 7, 2009. The respondents may file a statement of additional facts and response to remedy and may disclose any documents arising from the applicant’s materials, within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

9I am not seized.