Shirin (Massomeh) Ouji v. APLUS Institute, 2009 HRTO 1286

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shirin (Massomeh) Ouji

Applicant

-and-

APLUS Institute

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: August 19, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1286

Indexed as: Ouji v. APLUS Institute

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Shirin (Massomeh) Ouji, Applicant ) Tetyana Derzhak, ) Counsel

APLUS Institute, Respondent ) Stephen Bernofsky, ) Counsel )

1This Interim Decision addresses the request for an order during proceedings by the applicant dated July 31, 2009 seeking an amendment of the original complaint filed with the Commission.

2Specifically, the applicant seeks to amend her complaint to seek certain remedies as set out in the Request for Order and to add the grounds of age, race and ethnic origin to the complaint.

3With regard to the remedies being sought by the applicant, it is not necessary to file a Request for Order seeking an amendment to the complaint underlying the Application in order to specify what remedies are being sought. In the Tribunal’s process to deal with transitional applications filed under Part VI of the Code, the Tribunal affords the applicant the opportunity in advance of the hearing to file a description of the remedies being sought. In the instant case, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Hearing to the applicant dated July 24, 2009 which advises that a description of the remedies being sought by the applicant should be filed with the Tribunal by no later than August 24, 2009.

4In making this observation, I am aware of the position taken by the respondent regarding one of the applicant’s remedial requests, which is for “a written and verbal apology from each of the individual Respondents”. As there are no individual respondents to this Application, this request is a nullity.

5I will next address the applicant’s request to add additional grounds of discrimination beyond the ground of disability raised in the complaint. The submissions filed by the applicant in support of this proposed amendment include a great deal of information about intersecting grounds of discrimination as a general principle, but nowhere indicates specifically how it is alleged that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of age, race or ethnic origin. Rather, these extensive submissions continue to focus on the alleged ground of disability. The only direct statement about the alleged intersecting grounds is that the respondent’s alleged failure to accommodate the applicant’s needs “as a mature student with language problems and various medical conditions affected [the applicant’s] life differently than it would have done if she had been white, young and healthy”. In my view, this is an allegation that potentially may impact the assessment of any remedy that may be granted to the applicant, but is not an allegation of discrimination on these grounds as against the respondent.

6For all of these reasons, the request for an amendment of the complaint is denied.

7I am not seized of this matter.