Ahmed Akash v. Toronto Transit Commission, Dean Tassis, Randall Meredith and Tom Maounis, 2009 HRTO 804

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ahmed Akash

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission, Dean Tassis, Randall Meredith and Tom Maounis

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: June 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 804

Indexed as: Akash v. Toronto Transit Commission

1This is an Application filed on November 28, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) in which the applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin in the context of employment. The applicant also alleges that the respondents reprised against him for filing this Application.

2On April 30, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for an Order (“Request”) seeking to amend the Application to include a preamble as well as a detailed list of requested remedies.

3Since filing the Application, the applicant has obtained the assistance of legal counsel. The applicant argues that the proposed amendments clarify the original Application and provide a more workable framework for the hearing of this matter.

4A review of the proposed amendments shows that, in addition to this, the amendments refer to additional grounds of discrimination (race, place of origin, and creed) and include new allegations regarding discriminatory remarks allegedly made by coworkers.

5The respondents oppose the Request for the following reasons:

a. the Application provides no facts to support the allegation that the applicant was discriminated against because of his race, place of origin or creed;

b. the requested amendment does not set out additional material facts but, rather, is an attempt to editorialize and make argument;

c. the proposed amendment is prejudicial in that it does not provide sufficient particulars (including the names of the individuals alleged to have made discriminatory comments) to allow the respondents to respond or investigate; and

d. the facts underlying the requested amendment were known at the time the Application was filed and that, in any event, the letter alleged to have been an act of reprisal was found prior to the filing of the Application and therefore cannot, by definition, constitute a reprisal for the filing of the Application.

6The matter has not yet been scheduled for hearing.

7In my view, many of the respondents’ objections to the proposed amendments relate to factual or evidentiary issues that can be addressed at or before the hearing. The only apparent prejudice is the respondents’ statement that they require particulars concerning the allegations of discriminatory comments by coworkers. As this concern can be redressed if necessary through a further Request for an Order during Proceedings, I conclude that it is not a sufficient basis for denying the applicant’s Request.

8I grant the applicant’s Request and order that the Application be amended accordingly. If the respondents wish to file an amended Response, they may do so within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

9I am not seized of this matter.