HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hina Malik
Applicant
-and-
440 Rathburn (Etobicoke) Ltd., Judy Czezledi and Pat Murray
Respondents
Interim decsion
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Malik v. 440 Rathburn (Etobicoke) Ltd.
1This is an Application filed on May 27, 2010 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 housing on the place of origin and family status. The respondents filed a Response on August 17, 2010 and the Applicant filed a Reply on September 9, 2010. The Tribunal has scheduled the hearing of the matter on December 5 and 6, 2011.
2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) filed by the applicant on August 19, 2011 seeking to amend her Application. The respondents have not responded to the Request, and the time for responding to a request under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure has elapsed.
3In the Request, the applicant seeks to add marital status, creed and sex to the grounds of discrimination and increase the claim for general damages to $25,000.00. In the request, the applicant explained that she is a Muslim woman (identifiable as such because she wears a hijab) and a single parent with two children. The applicant stated that she was subject to an unwelcome comment when she requested to transfer to a one-bedroom apartment and that the respondent’s occupancy rules adversely affecting lone-parent families regarding access to housing. The applicant stated that the requested increase in general damages reflects the additional grounds of discrimination. The applicant submitted that the amendment does not seek to add new factual allegations to the Application and the grounds to be added arise from the allegations already made in the Application. The applicant further submitted that she made the Request in a timely manner and the respondents will suffer no prejudice.
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 amend the Application as requested. The Request was timely and the respondents have not identified any prejudice to them if the Request is granted. The proposed amendments expand the legal characterization of the applicant’s allegations, but do not add factual allegations not previously put to the respondents. Similarly, increasing the claim for general damages does not impair the respondent’s ability to defend the Application.
ORDER
6The Tribunal therefore directs as follows:
The Application will be amended, as requested in the Request dated August 19, 2011.
If they wish, the respondents may file an amended Response in Form 2 within two weeks of this Interim Decision, with a copy to the applicant;
The applicant may file an amended Reply within one week of her receipt of the amended Response, if any.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of October, 2011.
“signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice Chair