Kara Flanagan v. Diversified Global Asset Management Corporation, 2011 HRTO 455

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kara Flanagan

Applicant

-and-

Diversified Global Asset Management Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: March 3, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 455 Indexed as: Flanagan v. Diversified Global Asset Management

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Kara Flanagan, Applicant ) Elichai Shaffir, Counsel Diversified Global Asset Management ) Thomas A. Stefanik, Counsel Corporation, Respondent )

1The applicant filed an Application on December 4, 2009 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and filed a Request to amend it on August 6, 2010. Specifically, she seeks to increase the financial remedy requested from $90,600 to $138,416. The applicant indicates in her Request that she had made calculations of her losses only to the date she prepared her Application in August 2009, and not up until the date that the Application was filed in January 2010. I note, however, that the applicant has also requested to increase her claim for general damages from $10,000 to $25,000.

2The Respondent opposes the Request. It argues that the Application was filed in December 2009, not January 2010, and that the applicant could have calculated her lost wages in the Application at that time, but she did not. The respondent does not claim, however, that the amendment would cause any prejudice, nor does it refer to the increase in general damages.

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 more recently has 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 where the Tribunal granted amendments allowing expanded remedies.

5The hearing is scheduled for March 24 and 25, 2011, but the respondent has had notice of the intended amendment since the Request was filed, and I see no reason as to why the amendment would cause prejudice to the respondent. Besides, the granting of the applicant’s Request is not a reflection on whether the requested remedy is likely to be granted by the Tribunal; only that the applicant is entitled to seek such amended remedy at the hearing of this matter.

6The Request to amend the Application is granted.