Jessica Maciel v. Fashion Coiffures Ltd. and Crystal Coiffures Ltd., 2009 HRTO 623

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jessica Maciel

Applicant

-and-

Fashion Coiffures Ltd. and Crystal Coiffures Ltd.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 13, 2008

Citation: 2009 HRTO 623

Indexed as: Maciel v. Fashion Coiffures

1[1] The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) to amend the remedy sought in her Application to include compensation for lost parental benefits through Employment Insurance. In her Application, the applicant requested compensation for lost maternity benefits through Employment Insurance, but did not request the additional 35 weeks of parental benefits. The applicant states that the omission was inadvertent.

2The respondents’ previous counsel filed a Response to this Request, opposing the amendment on the basis that it was made prior to the filing of the “hearing brief,” the amendment is substantial and it is premature because the losses have yet to materialize. With respect to the cases relied upon by the respondents on the first point, they arise under the former regime, and are, in any event, inapplicable to this Request. With respect to the argument that the request is premature, the respondents rely on the assertion that the applicant can still meet the eligibility criteria of 600 hours in the 52 weeks prior to the benefit period. This is a factual matter on which evidence would need to be led before the Tribunal. That is, the submission that the request is “premature” cannot be determined at this point on the basis of an assertion of fact in a Response.

3There is a less than two month delay between the filing of the Application and the filing of the Request for Order to amend the Application. The respondents have failed to demonstrate that they have prejudiced by this delay or that the request is otherwise inappropriate. Accordingly, leave to amend the Application is granted.

4In addition, counsel for the applicant has filed a more recent Request, asking for an order that the “parties comply with a revised timetable for the production of documents.” She cites as the reason for this Request that counsel for the respondents (who is not the same individual who was originally retained) indicated to her that he was not available for the hearing scheduled for June 10-12, 2009.

5At the time she filed her Request (April 27, 2009), the applicant’s counsel was not in possession of the respondents disclosure of documents, as required by Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. On May 4, 2009, respondents’ counsel filed a Statement of Delivery to the applicant’s counsel of the disclosure pursuant to Rule 16.1 with the Tribunal.

6Despite what the applicant’s counsel states she was advised by respondents’ counsel, no request for adjournment of the hearing days has been made. The parties should, therefore, proceed in accordance with the requirements set out in the Rules of Procedure. The parties’ attention is drawn to the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, available on the Tribunal’s website.

7The Tribunal has not received Statements of Delivery from the parties’ counsel that they have satisfied their respective obligations to deliver to the other a list of the documents on which they intend to rely, as well as copy of each document not previously disclosed. No party has filed these lists and documents with the Tribunal as required by Rule 16.3. Moreover, no party has filed a witness list with the Tribunal as required by Rule 17. This material ought to have been filed 45 days prior to the hearing (i.e., April 27, 2009). The parties are directed to file all such material immediately.

8I am not seized of this matter.