Kenneth Mortillaro v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Transportation, 2010 HRTO 1356

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kenneth Mortillaro

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Transportation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: June 15, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1356 Indexed as: Mortillaro v. Ontario (Transportation)

1This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), dated May 15, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") on October 26, 2007.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant's Request to amend his complaint to address allegations of discrimination dating back to 2001 and 2002.

3The applicant's complaint as filed with the Commission relates to the suspension of his driver's licence in June 2007 due to his medical condition of alcoholism/addiction. Material submitted with the Application, namely a decision of the Divisional Court dated October 13, 2004, indicates that the applicant's driver's licence previously had been suspended on November 28, 1999 for failure to submit a satisfactory medical report. The applicant sought to appeal this suspension to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, but on July 4, 2003 received notice that the Tribunal declined jurisdiction. As a result of the Divisional Court decision, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to re-assess its jurisdiction.

4On March 24, 2010, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to allege that there were "two distinct instances of discrimination committed against [him]" and that "these unlawful acts occurred in 2001 and 2002". No details were provided as to what these instances of discrimination or unlawful acts from 2001 and 2002 are alleged by the applicant to be.

5The applicant then filed a Request for Order dated April 3, 2010 seeking to amend his complaint "to address the entire period of discriminatory action, from 2001 & 2 forward", but once again without saying what discriminatory actions the applicant alleges took place in 2001 or 2002 or at any time prior to 2007.

6Section 53(5) of the Code states that transitional applications to this Tribunal must be based on the subject-matter of the complaint as filed with the Commission. Further, Rule 12.3 of the Tribunal's Transitional Rules provides:

Section 53(5) Applications made in accordance with these Rules must be based on the subject matter of the complaint or amended complaint filed at the Commission.

7While Rule 12.4 of the Transitional Rules does contemplate that in certain circumstances an applicant may seek to amend the complaint as filed with the Commission, this Rule expressly provides that this option may only be exercised "having regard to Rule 12.3". The Tribunal's decisions have held that, except in extraordinary circumstances, these Rules should be interpreted to prohibit an applicant from expanding the subject-matter of the complaint by raising new allegations.

8In the instant case, the applicant is seeking to raise new allegations that pre-date his complaint by over 5 years. Further, he has not provided any details as to the specific nature of the new allegations that he intends to raise. In these circumstances, I am not prepared to allow the amendment of the applicant's complaint.

9For all of these reasons, the applicant's Request is denied.

10I am not seized.