Pfeiffer v. Margaret Laurence Housing Co-operative Inc., 2011 HRTO 1669

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeffrey Pfeiffer

Applicant

-and-

Margaret Laurence Housing Co-operative Inc. and Merle Pierre

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: September 8, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1669

Indexed as: Pfeiffer v. Margaret Laurence Housing Co-operative Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jeffrey Pfeiffer, Applicant ) R. Lang, Counsel

Margaret Laurence ) Housing Co-operative Inc., Respondent ) M. Klippenstein, Counsel

1This Application was filed on October 18, 2010 pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of disability, sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance.

2The Tribunal sent a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties on June 17, 2011, confirming that hearing dates have been set for January 4, 5 and 6, 2012.

3This decision deals with a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) filed by the corporate respondent (the “Co-op”) on July 13, 2011, in which it seeks to amend the original response it filed with the Tribunal on November 22, 2010.

4The Co-op seeks to amend its response in four areas: to correct typing errors with respect to certain dates; to provide further detail regarding the timeliness of the Co-op’s response to the applicant’s complaint when he originally made it known, prior to the filing of this Application; to provide further detail regarding how the Co-op informed the applicant through his counsel, of its findings and decisions with respect to the applicant’s complaint; and to provide additions to the list of relevant documents in its possession.

5Through his counsel, the applicant responded to the RFOP on July 19, 2011, stating that he consents to the Order sought by the Co-op, on condition that the respondents deliver to the applicant their lists of all arguably relevant documents, including copies of non-privileged documents, no later than July 29, 2011, and that the applicant be permitted to deliver and file an amended reply with respect to these amendments no later than 10 days after the Tribunal’s order allowing the amendments, if such an order is granted.

ANALYSIS

6Tribunal Rule 1.7 states in part as follows:

In order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:

a) lengthen or shorten any time limit in these Rules

c) allow any filing to be amended

7Tribunal Rule 16.1 states in part as follows:

Not later than 21 days after the Tribunal sends a Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, each party must deliver to every other party (and file a Statement of Delivery):

a) a list of all arguably relevant documents in their possession. Where a privilege is claimed over any document the party must describe the nature of the document and the reason for making the claim; and,

b) a copy of each document contained on the list, excluding any documents for which privilege is claimed.

8In determining whether to permit an amendment, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the amendment, the stage at which the request to amend is made and the question of any prejudice to the other party. See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336 and Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.

9The nature of the amendments the Co-op seeks to make do not appear so significant that they will change the nature of the inquiry before the Tribunal. Broadly characterized, they may be said to be little more than the provision of greater accuracy and detail. While a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing has been sent to the parties, I do not find that the matter is so far advanced as to make these amendments unreasonable at this time. Finally, with respect to prejudice to the applicant, the applicant requests that he be given an opportunity to make further reply to the amended Application and that the Co-op be ordered to produce its lists and copies of all relevant documents forthwith. I find that these conditions address any prejudice the applicant might otherwise experience.

10I find that it is consistent with the fair, just and expeditious resolution of this matter to permit the Co-op to file an amended response in the manner described in its RFOP.

11I note that in requesting that the “respondents” be required to produce their lists and copies of all relevant documents forthwith, the applicant has also requested that the individual respondent be required to provide such production forthwith. While the RFOP addresses the question of amendments to the Co-op’s response only, I find that it is appropriate in these circumstances to remind the individual respondent of her obligations pursuant to Rule 16.1 and to require her to provide such production forthwith.

ORDER

12The respondents will deliver to the applicant their lists of arguably relevant documents, including copies of non-privileged documents, within 5 days of the date of this decision.

13The applicant may deliver and file an amended reply with respect to the Co-op’s amended response, within 10 days of the date of this decision.

14I am not seized.