Lo v. MCJFC Food Enterprise Ltd., 2011 HRTO 26

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Simone de Oliveira Pinto Lo

Applicant

-and-

MCJFC Food Enterprise Ltd. and George Sebastian

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: January 5, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 26

Indexed as: Lo v. MCJFC Food Enterprise

Introduction

1This is an Application filed September 21, 2009 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against her on the ground of sex because at least one of the reasons for which they terminated her employment was because she was pregnant.

Preliminary or Procedural Issues

2The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to indicate a check mark in the box labelled "In being fired" on Form 1A. More significantly, on Form 1, she wants to expand the remedies she is seeking by adding general damages of $25,000 as well as special damages for lost wages and employment insurance benefits. The respondent opposes the applicant's Request. It appears that the only reason for them doing so is because they object to the applicant being influenced by recently retained counsel.

Decision on Applicant's Request to Amend

3In Odell v. Toronto Transit Commission, [2001] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 2, the Board of Inquiry stated:

The Board has jurisdiction to amend complaints. In deciding whether or not to permit such amendments, the Board is exercising its discretion. The factors influencing how that discretion will be exercised include the following:

Whether the amendment would occasion actual prejudice to the other party;

Fairness;

The conduct of the party seeking the amendment;

The impact of the proposed amendment on the course of the hearing and any other parties.

4Although the above decision was made before amendments to the Code came into effect, the Tribunal has also permitted amendments to applications made under section 34, taking into account the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the amendment and the absence of any apparent prejudice. See Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336 and Wozeilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926.

5The applicant's request to indicate a check mark in the box labelled "In being fired" on Form 1A is already implied in the text of her Application, and I see no reason not to allow that amendment. I therefore exercise my discretion to do so.

6While the applicant did not itemize damages in her Application, she did indicate that she planned to seek them and she described the impact of the events on her. Itemizing the remedies is reasonably connected to her original Application and allegations. I do not find that the amendments would prejudice the respondents or prolong the hearing. In the circumstances, I also exercise my discretion to grant the applicant's Request to amend the Application to add special damages for lost income and $25,000 as general damages in requested remedies.

7I am not seized.