Jai De Boles v. Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services, 2011 HRTO 1164

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jai De Boles Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: June 15, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1164 Indexed as: De Boles v. Ontario (Community Safety & Correctional Services)

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on March 26, 2010 alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of sex.

2The respondent filed a Response on June 16, 2010.

3On April 6, 2011, following the parties’ unsuccessful attempt at mediation, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to amend the Application. The applicant requests that the Application be amended in the following respects: 1.) to add the ground of disability, 2.) to increase the remedial claim. The Request indicated that the respondent was aware of the applicant’s intention to request to amend the Application and the parties had consented on an extension of time for the respondent to file its response to the Request.

4On May 31, 2011, the respondent filed a response to the Request indicating that it does not oppose the request for amendment subject to the following conditions: 1.) that the applicant provide further particulars with respect to the allegations in relation to disability and 2.) the respondent be granted an opportunity to file an amended Response.

DECISION

5Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure state that in order to provide for a fair, just and expedition resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended.”

6Given the respondent’s consent and the nature of the proposed amendments, I am satisfied that the Application can be amended to add the ground of disability and increase the claim for general damages. The addition of the ground of disability does not raise new facts distinct from the original narrative. The Response filed by the respondent also described the applicant’s health concerns and relied on certain alleged facts in denying the discrimination. The proposed remedial amendment is simply is a request to increase the quantum sought by the applicant in the way of general damages.

7These amendments are made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the remedies sought, and without prejudice to any position the respondent may wish to take regarding these issues.

DIRECTIONS

8In conclusion, I order the following:

1. The Application be amended to add ground of disability and to increase the claim for general damages;

2. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant is directed to file with the Tribunal, and copied to the respondent, further particulars with respect to the facts and issues regarding the disability allegations;

3. The respondent is directed to file an amended Response within 35 days of the date of receipt of the applicant’s particulars; and

4. The applicant may file a Reply to the respondent’s Response within 14 days of receipt of the Response.

9I am not seized.