Ritchy Dube v. John Howard Society of Canada, John Rimore, Mike Szabo and Graham Stewart, 2009 HRTO 39

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ritchy Dube

Applicant

-and-

John Howard Society of Canada, John Rimore, Mike Szabo and Graham Stewart

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: January 13, 2008 Citation: 2009 HRTO 39 Indexed as: Dube v. John Howard Society

1This involves an Application filed on October 22, 2008 under section 34 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 applicant’s Request for an Order during Proceedings (“Request”).

2The proceedings are at an early stage. The Application has been served on the respondents but, pursuant to the Tribunal’s Interim Decision 2008 HRTO 326, the respondents are not required to serve or file a Response to the Application until the Tribunal has addressed the Request.

3In the Request, the applicant is seeking an Order amending the Application to:

(a) include the ground of disability; and

(b) incorporate representations, included in the Request under the heading “Summary”, into the Application.

ISSUES RAISED BY THE RESPONDENTS

4The respondents object to both proposed amendments, stating that they are prejudiced given that over two years have elapsed since the alleged discrimination. The respondents provide no details of the alleged prejudice.

5In the Response to the Request, the respondents raise the following issues, which they argue must be determined before the Tribunal considers the Request:

(a) the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this matter because the applicant was never employed or interviewed by the respondents;

(b) the Application was filed outside the limitation period; and

(c) the applicant should provide particulars regarding the alleged date of a job interview referred to the in Application.

6I find that the issues raised by the respondents are premature at this stage and are best determined once the respondents have filed a complete Response to the Application. The respondents will have the opportunity to raise these issues in their Response to the Application or in a Request for an Order during Proceedings pursuant to Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

7On review of the material before me, I see no apparent prejudice. I also find that the respondents are sufficiently aware of the matters that form the basis of the applicant’s allegations to file a Response that meets the requirements of the Rules. The respondents may reserve the right to provide additional information, once particulars, if any, are forthcoming.

ORDER

8Without determining any of the issues raised by the respondents, including the timeliness of the Application, the Tribunal grants the Request. In view of the stage at which the Request to amend has been made, the nature of the amendments, and the absence of any apparent prejudice, the Request is granted.

9The respondents are directed to file a complete Response within 20 days of this decision. The applicant may file a Reply, if he wishes, dealing only with new matters raised in the Response, not later than 14 days after receipt of the Response.

10I am not seized of this matter.