HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Erika Jones
Applicant
-and-
Bridal Classics Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Jones v. Bridal Classics Inc.
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on March 18, 2011, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy). The Application is scheduled for a hearing in Toronto on June 18 and 19, 2012. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the remedies sought in the Application (the “Request to amend”) which was filed on May 9, 2012. The Request for Order During Proceedings filed by the applicant on May 24, 2012, and opposed by the respondent, shall be dealt with at the commencement of the hearing.
2The applicant requests that the Application be amended to include a request for an order of 1) $15,000 in general damages and 2) a public interest remedy consistent with the Code, “consisting of human rights training on pregnancy related discrimination for managers and other staff employed by the Respondent and the development of a written policy on the accommodation of pregnant employees and maternity/parental leave practices.”
3The respondent did not file a Response to the Request to amend.
4In support of the Request to amend, the applicant states that she was not represented by counsel at the time that she filed her Application, and has since been advised of her legal rights. She also argues that the amendments sought do not require a change to the underlying facts as pled, and she does not seek to amend or add any new allegations to which the respondent would then be required to file a revised Response. Therefore, she argues that the proposed amendment will not prolong or impact the hearing in any significant way.
Decision
5Rule 1.7. of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
In order to provide for a fair, just and expedition resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may:
c) allow any filing to be amended.
6I have considered the submissions and the case law cited by the applicant (see Lo v. MCJFC Food Enterprise, 2011 HRTO 26; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926; Robert v. 289900 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 653; and Jensen v. National Utility Service (Canada) Ltd., 2012 HRTO 280), and I find that it is appropriate to grant the applicant’s Request to amend. The amendment of the Application will not delay the proceedings or prejudice the respondent, particularly given that she described in her Application the impact of the events on her, and these new remedies are reasonably connected to her original allegations.
Order
7The Tribunal makes the following Order:
a. The Application is amended to include the remedies as requested by the applicant and described at paragraph 2 of this Interim Decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of June, 2012.
“Signed by”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair