Helen Loo v. Katz Group Canada Ltd., 2009 HRTO 2183

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Helen Loo Applicant

-and-

Katz Group Canada Ltd. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: December 16, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2183 Indexed as: Loo v. Katz Group

1In this Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), filed on August 7, 2009, the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

2On November 10, 2009, the respondent filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings ("RFOP") seeking dismissal of the Application on the basis that it does not disclose a prima facie case and does not comply with the completeness requirements found in Rule 6.2 under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and, in the alternative, requiring the provision of full particulars.

3On November 24, 2009, the applicant filed a Response to the RFOP as well as her own RFOP seeking an order permitting the amendment of her Application and providing an extension of time to permit her to do so.

4On December 8, 2009, the respondent filed a Response to the applicant's RFOP in which it claimed that the amendment of the applicant's claim would constitute an abuse of process (in light of the fact that the Application was filed only days before the Code's limitation period expired), and it submitted that the applicant's explanation for the sparse allegations in the Application (that she did not fully understand the requirements for the completion of the Application) is unsatisfactory.

5This Interim Decision will determine the parties' RFOPs and will provide directions for the next steps in this matter.

6In my view, the Application is sufficient to meet the limitation period set out in section 34(1) of the Code. Although there are few particulars about the alleged discrimination, the applicant has evidenced her intention to proceed with a claim under the Code within the limitation period.

7It is appropriate in the circumstances that the applicant be allowed to amend her Application which should contain sufficient particulars to allow the respondent to know the case that it has to meet. Both the applicant and the respondent require sufficient time to file their pleadings following the date of this Interim Decision.

8The Tribunal therefore orders:

(a) the respondent's RFOP to dismiss the Application is denied, without prejudice to its right to renew the request, if so advised, following the delivery of the amended Application;

(b) the applicant's RFOP is allowed. She shall provide to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a complete, particularized amended Application by January 8, 2010;

(c) the respondent shall provide to the applicant and file with the Tribunal a Response in Form 2 by January 29, 2010.

9I am not seized.