minicounsel

Mullins v. Imperial Roofing, 2011 HRTO 439 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

March 1, 2011

Mullins v. Imperial Roofing, 2011 HRTO 439

Case Summary

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a corporate respondent, remove an individual respondent, and amend her Application to add further particulars. The respondents agreed to the removal of the individual but objected to the addition of the corporation, citing prejudice due to the time and expense of filing a second Response. The Tribunal found that the parties agreed the corporation was the more appropriate party and ordered the addition of the corporate respondent and the removal of the individual respondent. The Tribunal also allowed the applicant to amend her Application and granted the respondents 35 days to file a revised Response.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jennifer Mullins

Applicant

-and-

Imperial Roofing (Sarnia) Ltd. and Vaughn Berry

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: March 1, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 439

Indexed as: Mullins v. Imperial Roofing

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jennifer Mullins, Applicant ) Tyler Coleman, Counsel

Vaughn Berry and John Maw, ) Kristin Ley, Counsel

Respondents )

[1] Subsequent to filing an Application on July 27, 2010, the applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) in which she asked to add Imperial Roofing (Sarnia) Ltd. as a respondent to her Application and to amend her Application to add further particulars. The then respondents filed a Response to the applicant’s Request opposing both amendments, although on a qualified basis.

[2] The respondents’ objections were such that it was determined that the issues could more readily be addressed by a case management hearing, at which time the parties could make oral submissions. The Tribunal directed that this be addressed by way of a conference call, which was heard on January 24, 2011. A further Case Assessment Direction was issued following the hearing directing the applicant to file a new Form 10, in which she attaches as a schedule the full particulars of her claim against the respondents.

[3] On February 8, 2011, the applicant, who is now represented by counsel, filed the Form 10, as directed, and a proposed, revised version of her Form 1 to her Application. In addition, the applicant re-requests that Imperial Roofing (Sarnia) Ltd. (“Imperial”) be added as a respondent, and, for the first time, requests that John Maw, an individual respondent named in her original Application, be removed as a party to her Application.

[4] In its Response to the Request for Order (Form 11), the respondents agree to the removal of John Maw, object to addition of Imperial and take no position on the remaining proposed amendments to the Application, although they ask for 35 days to file an amended Response.

[5] With respect to its objection to the addition of Imperial, the respondents argue they would be prejudiced because they will have to “spend additional time and expense in preparing and filing a second Response.” They further state that if Imperial is added as a respondent, then John Maw should be removed as a party.

[6] Given that the applicant has asked to remove Mr. Maw, it is difficult to understand the respondent’s latter position. With respect to its initial objection, it would seem that the revision to the allegations, on which it takes no position, would require it to prepare and file a response in any event.

[7] It would seem that the parties agree that Imperial is the more appropriate party and that Mr. Maw should be removed. Accordingly, I order that Imperial Roofing (Sarnia) Ltd. be added as a respondent and John Maw be removed as a respondent. The style of cause has been amended to reflect this change.

[8] With respect to the amendments to the Application, the original allegations were incomplete and difficult to understand and the revisions further and better particularize the allegations. I agree that the respondents should be allowed the opportunity to file a revised Response.

[9] Accordingly, I order that the Application be amended so that the Form 1 attached to the applicant’s February 8, 2011 Request for Order, be substituted for the Form 1 in the applicant’s July 27, 2010 Application. In addition, I order that the respondents file any revised Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

[10] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 1^st^ day of March, 2011.

“signed by”

Naomi Overend

Vice-chair