Ruremesha v. Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1683

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Symbah Ruremesha

Applicant

-and-

Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada, Paula Lansky, Michael Morris, and Robyn Layng

Respondents

Interim decIsion

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: September 13, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1683

Indexted as: Ruremesha v. Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada

1This is an Application filed on April 5, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and age. The respondents filed a Response on June 21, 2011 and the Applicant filed a Reply on July 4, 2011. On June 22, 2011 the respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing, which the Tribunal granted by Case Assessment Direction dated July 12, 2011. The Tribunal has not yet set the date for the Summary Hearing.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) filed by the applicant on August 16, 2011 seeking to amend his Reply. The respondents have not responded to the Request.

3In the Request, the applicant asserts that many of the statements set out in the Response are untrue, but the applicant did not address them in the Reply because he was not aware this was necessary at this stage of the process. He has since received legal advice and seeks an opportunity to address these allegedly untruthful statements and set out the evidence supporting his claim.

4In determining requests to amend pleadings 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 respondent. See Ewing v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 1066.

5I am satisfied that the applicant should be permitted to submit an Amended Reply. He made the Request promptly and the respondents have not identified any prejudice to them if the Request is granted. The proposed amendments are within the scope of reply pleadings. The Tribunal has not yet scheduled a date for the Summary Hearing and the Amended Reply may make the Summary Hearing unnecessary.

ORDER

6The applicant may deliver and file an Amended Reply within 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision.