Edgar Guzman v. Senton Incorporated and John Thain, 2011 HRTO 1480

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Edgar Guzman Applicant

-and-

Senton Incorporated and John Thain Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: August 8, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1480 Indexed as: Guzman v. Senton Incorporated

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 1, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability. The Application originally named the corporate respondent and six personal respondents, one of whom is the proprietor of the corporate respondent.

2The respondents filed a Response on June 11, 2010, denying the allegations of discrimination. The Response was filed by the corporate respondent and personal respondent proprietor on behalf of all the personal respondents.

3This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings asking to remove five of the personal respondents, delete paragraph 5 from his narrative, and amend his Application to clarify the monetary relief.

4The respondents did not file submissions in response to the applicant’s Request.

5With respect to the applicant’s request to remove respondents and delete a paragraph from his Application, it appears that the applicant seeks to narrow the allegations and withdraw the Application as against the five personal respondents who were co-workers or management. Given the respondents do not object and in light of the fact that applicant does not intend to pursue a claim against these individuals and seeks to limit his allegations, it is appropriate to allow the applicant to remove the personal respondents and delete paragraph 5 from the Application narrative.

6I am satisfied that the applicant should be permitted to amend his Application to clarify the remedies sought. The remedial amendments proposed by the applicant simply remove one claim of lost wages and reduce the amounts claimed for special damages. I see no reason to deny the request to amend the monetary remedy in this regard. This amendment is made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the appropriateness of the remedies sought, and without prejudice to any position the respondents may wish to take regarding the issue of remedies.

ORDER

7In conclusion, the applicant’s requests to amend to the Application to remove five personal respondents, delete an allegation and clarify the remedial relief are granted. I order that the Application be amended as set out in the applicant’s Request and the style of cause be amended accordingly.

8I am not seized.