[1] This is an Application pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). It was filed on January 6, 2009, and is scheduled to be heard on January 26, 27, and 28 and February 10, 2010. These dates were rescheduled from November, 2009 as a result of an adjournment because of health issues of a respondent witness: see [2009 HRTO 1683](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/1683)

[2] In a Case Assessment Direction dated July 3, 2009, the Tribunal set out the issues raised in the Application as follows:

i) Does the frequency of low floor bus service offered by the respondent constitute discrimination against the applicant in the provision of services, goods and facilities on the basis of disability contrary to s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

ii) If so, what are the appropriate remedies.

[3] On January 14, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his Application to add allegations of reprisal contrary to s. 8 of the Code on the basis of four incidents: (i) a visit to his home by the Guelph police in July of 2009, (ii) the denial of a grant by the respondent to an organization in which he is involved in December of 2009; (iii) the fact that he applied but the respondent did not appoint him to the Transit Growth Strategy and Plan Advisory Committee and the Accessibility Advisory Committee in November and December of 2009; and (iv) alleged statements in December 2009 that the respondent’s Mayor and Chief Executive Officer would not meet with him regarding a concern about City signage until these proceedings were completed. He also seeks disclosure of various materials regarding these incidents.

[4] It is not necessary for the respondents to make submissions on the applicant’s Requests. The Requests are dismissed, without affecting the applicant’s ability to file a separate Application raising the reprisal issues. The production issues can be dealt with through that process.

[5] In considering requests to amend, the Tribunal typically considers factors such as the nature of the amendment, the reasons for the amendment, the stage it is made and whether there would be prejudice to the respondent. The hearing is scheduled to start in a week and a half. The requested amendments would almost certainly require an adjournment of all of the hearing dates so that the respondents could adequately respond and the necessary production could take place. It is also evident that, unlike in some circumstances in which reprisal is alleged, there is little or no factual overlap between the evidence required to hear the allegations in the Application (which relate to the general issue of whether the frequency of low floor bus service is discriminatory) and the reprisal allegations (which relate to the treatment of the applicant in specific incidents since this Application was filed). There would therefore be few advantages, if any, to hearing the allegations together. Any prejudice to the applicant as a result of the requirement to file the reprisal allegations in a separate Application is outweighed by the significant effect on the hearing process, including a change in the nature and scope of the hearing, as a result of the requested amendment being made so close to the scheduled hearing dates.

[6] In raising the timing of the requested amendment, I do not fault the applicant, as many of these incidents occurred recently. However, in light of the timing, it is most fair, just and expeditious to hear them in a separate Application, should the applicant choose to file one.

[7] The applicant’s Request to amend his Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of January, 2010.

“Signed by”

David A. Wright

Vice-chair

Matthew Wozenilek v. City of Guelph, 2010 HRTO 99

Case Summary

[2] In a Case Assessment Direction dated July 3, 2009, the Tribunal set out the issues raised in the Application as follows:

[4] It is not necessary for the respondents to make submissions on the applicant’s Requests. The Requests are dismissed, without affecting the applicant’s ability to file a separate Application raising the reprisal issues. The production issues can be dealt with through that process.

[6] In raising the timing of the requested amendment, I do not fault the applicant, as many of these incidents occurred recently. However, in light of the timing, it is most fair, just and expeditious to hear them in a separate Application, should the applicant choose to file one.

[7] The applicant’s Request to amend his Application is dismissed.