Connie Amartey v. Boaden Catering Ltd., 2011 HRTO 1259

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Connie Amartey

Applicant

-and-

Boaden Catering Ltd., Louie Tassone and Tamera Boaden

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: June 30, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1259 Indexed as: Amartey v. Boaden Catering Ltd.

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) (“Request”) asking to amend her Application to add the ground of disability, remove other grounds, remove a personal respondent and add a particular. Her Application currently alleges that the respondent discriminated against her in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant filed the Request to amend on March 25, 2011. The respondents did not file a Response to the Request for Order (Form 11) and the time for so doing has now passed. The applicant seeks to remove the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin on the basis that she does not intend to call evidence with respect to these grounds. These grounds are only briefly referred to in the narrative in section 8 of her Application. The request to remove the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin is granted.

3With respect to the applicant’s request to add the ground of disability, she correctly points out that her narrative makes extensive reference to a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) claim and alleges differential treatment on the basis of this claim. I concur with the applicant’s submissions that the respondents were aware of these allegations and responded to them in their Response. There is no apparent prejudice to the respondents and, accordingly, the request to amend to add the ground of disability is granted.

4The comments attributed to the named individual respondent, Chris Green, appear to have been made in the course of his employment. Given that his employer has been named as a respondent to these proceedings, it is not necessary to also have Mr. Green as a named party. The request to remove Chris Green as a respondent is granted and the style of proceeding is amended accordingly.

5The respondents have not asserted that they are prejudiced by the late disclosure of the allegation that the applicant was asked by the individual respondent, Tamara Broaden, whether she would be expanding her family during her interview for the position of banquet manager. In any event, the request to add this particular was made four months before the scheduled hearing, giving the respondents ample time to respond. This particular is related to the other allegations in the Application and, on its face, would not likely significantly prolong the hearing. Accordingly, the request to add this allegation is granted.

ORDER

6To summarize, I have made the following orders:

a. The request to amend the Application by removing the personal respondent, Chris Green, is granted;

b. The request to amend the Application by removing the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin is granted.

c. The request to amend the Application by adding the ground of disability is granted; and

d. The request to amend the Application by adding the allegation that Tamara Broaden asked the applicant during her interview for the position of Banquet Manager whether she had plans to expand her family is granted.