Kelly Hill v. Spectrum Telecom Group Ltd., 2010 HRTO 2066

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kelly Hill

Applicant

-and-

Spectrum Telecom Group Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2066

Indexed as: Hill v. Spectrum Telecom Group

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Kelly Hill, Applicant ) Self-represented

Spectrum Telecom Group Ltd., Respondent ) Eric Kannen, Representative

Reasons for Decision

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request to amend his Application.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on April 14, 2009, which alleged that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment because of disability. Specifically, he alleged that the respondent terminated his employment while he was on a disability leave.

3The respondent filed a Response on July 28, 2009, which denied the allegation of discrimination. The respondent states that it terminated the applicant’s employment solely because of a lack of work.

4The applicant filed a Reply on September 10, 2009.

5On June 25, 2010, the parties attended a mediation at the Tribunal, which did not result in a settlement.

6On July 20, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, which requested the amendment of his Application to include a complaint of “harassment”. His Request included specific allegations of harassment. All the allegations relate to incidents that were already mentioned in the pleadings filed by both parties.

7On August 9, 2010, the respondent filed a Response to the Request, which opposed amending the Application. The respondent submitted that the applicant discovered at the mediation that he had no basis for his case, and was therefore trying to build a new case based on “harassment”. The respondent also provided a substantive response to each of the applicant’s allegations.

8In considering requests to amend Applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the stage at which the request is made, the nature of the amendments, and the prejudice to the respondent: Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, Wozeilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926, and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

9In my view, the applicant’s Request should be granted because the Tribunal has not yet scheduled a hearing, the requested amendments relate to incidents that were already mentioned in the parties’ pleadings, and the respondent did not identify any actual prejudice to it if the Request is granted.

10I cannot consider any submissions with respect to what happened at the mediation because it was a confidential process, and all the statements made there were without prejudice. The credibility of the applicant’s allegations, including when they were raised, is a matter to be tested at the hearing.

11Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to amend his Application is granted.

12I am not seized of this matter.