Smith v. Voysus Group Inc., 2011 HRTO 919

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Amanda Smith

Applicant

-and-

Voysus Group Inc. and Mahdi Raza

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie

Date: May 11, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 919

Indexed as: Smith v. Voysus Group Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Amanda Smith, Applicant ) George Brown, representative

Voysus Group Inc. and Mahdi Raza, ) Matthew Vella, counsel

Respondents )

1The applicant filed an Application 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 employment on the basis of sex. The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (the "RFOP") seeking to amend the requested remedy in her Application. The respondents provided a Response to the RFOP on April 15, 2011. This Interim Decision deals with the RFOP.

2The applicant was self-represented when she filed her Application on April 6, 2010. As a remedy for her claim of discrimination under the Code, she sought an amount of $30,000 to $40,000 for loss of wages, pain and suffering and injury to dignity.

3On August 1, 2010, the applicant retained a representative.

4The Application was scheduled for mediation on February 7, 2011. The mediation did not resolve the Application.

5On April 8, 2011, the applicant's representative filed the RFOP. The applicant is seeking to amend the Application by changing the requested remedy to $100,000. The applicant's representative stated in the RFOP that the applicant was unrepresented when she filed her Application and was not aware of her entitlement for loss of wages and the infringement of her rights under the Code. The representative stated that the applicant was entitled to $10,000 to $40,000 for the infringement of her rights under the Code and was also entitled to payment for loss of wages for a period of one year, "plus".

6The respondents objected to the request to amend the Application. The respondents submitted that the request was untimely. The request for amendment was almost a full year after the filing of the Application. The respondents submitted that they had already responded to the Application and there had been a mediation. The fact that the applicant was self-represented was not relevant, according to the respondents. The respondents also stated that the applicant had been represented since August of 2010. The respondents stated that the "significant monetary value" of the proposed amendment was prejudicial to the respondents "as it could have altered the way this case was managed from the outset", although no specifics are provided beyond this assertion.

7The requested amendment does not change the nature of the allegations of discrimination. It only changes the remedy requested. Although the respondents are correct in their statement that the requested amendment could have been sought earlier, permitting the amendment will not affect the scheduling of the Application for hearing. Further, while the respondent has cited prejudice, it is apparent that this concern is speculative. On balance, having regard to the nature of the amendment and the absence of any clear prejudice, the amendment to the requested remedy is granted.

8The Tribunal therefore directs as follows:

• the Application will be amended, as requested in RFOP dated April 8, 2010.
• 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.