Rutledge v. Shannon Steel Inc. (No. 2)
2010-04584-I
2011-03-14
2011 HRTO 507
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Wayne Rutledge
Applicant
-and-
Shannon Steel Inc. and Dennis Brough
Respondents
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Rutledge v. Shannon Steel
INTERIM DECISION
The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"), alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, and sexual orientation in the context of employment.
The applicant has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings "Request" to add an allegation of reprisal, and a request for a financial remedy relating to wage loss.
Request to Amend
- In Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre, 2008 HRTO 16 [CHRR Doc. 08-117], which dealt with an allegation of reprisal in addition to other requested amendments, the Tribunal laid out some of the factors considered when determining whether to allow an applicant to amend an application or add additional allegations including:
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.
On review of the Application, it can be seen that the applicant has alleged actions by the respondents that could if proven amount to reprisal under the Code. The amendment therefore has the effect only of naming the action alleged and therefore is a restatement of allegations made in the original complaint.
The Request to add a request for a remedy in respect of wage loss also has a logical connection with the original allegations.
The Request indicates that the respondents were put on notice in early January 2011 that the amendment would be sought. The respondents have not responded to the Request. I cannot see how anyone would be prejudiced by granting the applicant's Request to amend in these circumstances. The Request to amend the Application to include the allegation of reprisal and to specify that a request will be made for compensation for loss of income is granted.
The respondents may deliver to the applicant and file an amended Response by no later than March 31, 2011. The applicant may deliver and file an amended Reply, if necessary, by no later than April 8, 2011.
I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of March, 2011.
"Signed By"
Judith Keene
Vice-chair