Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Karen Reeves Applicant
-and-
Case N’ Drum Oil LP, Larry Melnyk, Suzanne Newington and Craig Read Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: October 12, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1839 Indexed as: Reeves v. Case N’ Drum Oil LP
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Karen Reeves, Applicant ) Kevin A. Egan, Counsel Case N’ Drum Oil LP, Larry Melnyk and ) Laurie B. Jessome, Counsel Suzanne Newington, Respondents )
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request to amend her Application.
2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, on May 12, 2010, the respondents (with the exception of Craig Read) filed a Response on August 24, 2010, and the applicant filed a Reply on October 22, 2010.
3On June 21, 2011, the parties attended a mediation at the Tribunal, which did not result in a settlement of the case. The Tribunal has not yet scheduled a hearing.
4On August 8, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend sections 9 (“How the Events You Described Affected You”), 10 (“The Remedy You are Asking for”), and 17 (“Important Documents the Respondent has”) of her Application. In essence, the requested amendments seek to increase the amount of monetary damages that the applicant is asking for, and to put the respondents on notice to retain her personnel file.
5On August 16, 2011, the respondents filed a Response which opposed the Request. The respondents submitted that the applicant failed to explain why she is seeking to change her requested remedy, her new requested remedy is so vague that the respondents will be unable to properly prepare for the hearing, and the alleged damages that she is seeking are too remote to be included in her Application.
6In Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre et al, 2008 HRTO 16, the Tribunal set out some of the factors to consider when deciding whether to allow an applicant to amend an application:
a) Whether the additional allegations flow from or form part of the continuum of facts of the original complaint,
b) Whether the allegations provide a useful context for considering the legal issues in the case,
c) The reasons for raising the allegations at this date,
d) The quality of the evidence to support the additional allegations,
e) Whether the amendment would occasion actual prejudice to the respondents so that a fair hearing on the issues could not be held, and
f) The impact of the proposed amendment on the course of the hearing and the other parties.
7In Miraglia v. University of Waterloo, 2009 HRTO 799, the Tribunal considered a similar Request to amend an Application, and made the following holding, which, in my view, is equally applicable to the case at hand:
The amendments sought in this case relate to relief sought by the applicant and do not involve additional allegations. A decision to permit the amendment is not based on any assessment as to the appropriateness of the relief. It is open to the respondent to present evidence and argument concerning whether the relief claimed is connected to the substance of the Application and whether it is an appropriate remedy given the circumstances of the case. As there is no prejudice to the respondent in allowing the amendment, the request to amend the Application is granted.
8Furthermore, given the fact that the Tribunal has not yet scheduled a hearing in this case and the requested amendments are essentially limited to increasing the amount of monetary damages that the applicant is asking for, I do not believe that granting the applicant’s Request will have a significant impact on the course of the hearing and the other parties.
9Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to amend her Application is granted. If the respondents want to address the amendments to the Application, they may file an amended Response within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of October, 2011.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Ken Bhattacharjee Vice-chair