Morgan v. University of Waterloo, 2011 HRTO 1422

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Tracy Morgan Applicant

-and-

University of Waterloo and David Mackay Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: July 28, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1422 Indexed as: Morgan v. University of Waterloo

1This is an Application filed on April 12, 2010, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination and harassment in employment on the grounds of sex. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant's Request for an Order to During Proceedings (Form 10) filed on July 8, 2011, seeking to amend her Application. The respondents filed their Response (Form 11) on July 22, 2011, opposing the applicant's request.

2In brief, the applicant alleges that the institutional respondent continues to subject her to reprisal and the personal respondent continues to discriminate against her. She requests that her Application be amended to include alleged incidents of reprisal and discrimination dating principally from January 2011 to June 2011. The applicant submits that the respondents' actions have a direct bearing on her case and that she is requesting that she be able to refer to these actions within the scope of her hearing before the Tribunal. The applicant also requests that she be allowed to add a remedy to her Application that relates to one of the alleged incidents of discrimination dating from 2011. The applicant also requests that she be allowed to disclose the institutional respondent's April 30, 2011 Financial Statement in order to respond to the respondent's claim that her request for financial remedy is too large.

3The respondents oppose the applicant's request. They submit that the request is late given that the parties have already exchanged documents and witness statements in preparation of the hearing that is scheduled to proceed in September. They submit that it is prejudicial to the respondents and disruptive to the hearing process to allow additional late substantial allegations of Code violations. They submit that the respondents do not have adequate time to respond to the proposed amendments and that these amendments would unfairly broaden the scope of the proceedings and delay and prolong the hearing.

DECISION

4The applicant's request to amend is denied in its entirety. In considering requests to amend applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondents. See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563. I am also guided by what would be most fair, just and expeditious in the circumstances.

5The issues raised in the Application are numerous and complicated and in my view, parameters need to be clearly drawn around the issues that will be the subject of the hearing in order for the hearing to proceed in a fair, just and expeditious manner. The proposed amendments are substantial in nature and would unduly broaden the scope of the hearing. In my view the request to add the proposed amendments would prejudice the respondents, given the timing of the applicant's request and the resulting short period of time available for the respondents to respond to the new allegations.

6The request to add a further remedy is denied as it relates to an incident that does not form part of the original Application. The request to disclose the institutional respondent's April 30, 2011 Financial Statement is denied at this time given its lateness and the fact that it is not clear how the institutional respondent's finances are arguably relevant to any general damages that the Tribunal would potentially award.