Jennifer Lehoux v. Baxter Corporation, Betty Mercer, Lisa Ward and Peter Weiss, 2009 HRTO 2038

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jennifer Lehoux

Applicant

-and-

Baxter Corporation, Betty Mercer, Lisa Ward and Peter Weiss

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sunil Kapur

Date: November 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2038

Indexed as: Lehoux v. Baxter

1This Application was received on June 24, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request to strike part of the Application as an attempt to expand the Application beyond the complaint that was filed with the Commission.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT

2The Application against the respondents relates to an alleged failure to accommodate the applicant in the workplace during her pregnancy. At the time of her pregnancy the applicant claims that she was unable to perform certain duties and that the respondents failed to accommodate her requests for modified work. In their Response to the Application, the respondents state that the applicant has added in new allegations to her complaint and that she has asked for $100,000 in new damages. The respondents request that the new allegations and the new damage claim should be struck.

3The allegations that the respondents are seeking to strike are contained in a two- page document titled “Complaint Update AAHD-6LZL5M”. The document is dated June 24, 2009 and is contained in tab 5 of the Response (the “Complaint Update”). The allegations contained in the Complaint Update are based on facts that occurred after the completion of the applicant’s maternity/parental leave. The facts alleged relate to the applicant’s treatment upon returning from the leave and her subsequent decision to resign her employment from Baxter Corporation. These allegations were not part of the subject matter of the complaint made to the Commission.

4Rule 12 clearly states that a section 53(5) application will be based on the subject matter of the complaint as it was when abandoned at the Commission. Generally speaking a section 53(5) application will be limited to the subject matter of the complaint made to the Commission and the Tribunal will only exercise its discretion to allow amendments where it is necessary to ensure to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the application. I am not satisfied based on the materials filed that it is necessary to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the Application to allow the Application to contain the allegations in the Complaint Update document. Accordingly, the allegations contained in the Complaint Update are struck from the Application.

5The respondents also object to the additional remedies claimed in the Complaint Update document. The Tribunal does not generally limit an applicant to the remedies indicated in the complaint filed with the Commission. I see no reason to depart from this. Accordingly the request to strike the additional remedies claimed in the Complaint Update document is denied. The applicant may want to amend her request for remedies given my decision to strike the allegations contained in the Complaint Update document.