HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Peter Markarian
Applicant
-and-
Niagara Regional Police Service, Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board, Christopher Lucy and Wendy Southall
Respondents
INTERIM dECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Markarian v. Niagara Regional Police Service
1The applicant filed an Application on July 7, 2011 under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to services, goods and facilities because of disability.
2The respondents filed a Response on October 12, 2011 denying the allegations of disability discrimination and reprisal.
3On November 17, 2011, the applicant filed a Reply and a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”), which requested the Application be amended to include two additional respondents, specifically the Board of the organizational respondent and the Chief of the Police, as well as to raise two allegations/issues. The applicant submits that the additional respondents corrects the identity of the responsible organizational entity, as well as identifies the parties best able to address the issues of discrimination. The applicant submits that the two additional allegations are key issues related to the existing issues.
4On December 19, 2011, the respondents filed a response to the Request and consented to the proposed amendments on the condition that the respondents are permitted the opportunity to amend their Response.
DECISION
5In determining requests to amend Applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondent. See Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.
6I am satisfied that the applicant should be permitted to amend the Application to include the additional respondents and raise the additional allegations/issues as set out in the applicant’s Request. The applicant made the Request immediately after receipt of the Response and as part of his Reply submissions. The Tribunal’s process is still in the early stages. No mediation has occurred yet. No arguable relevant documents have been exchanged nor has a hearing been scheduled. The respondents consent to the proposed amendments. The respondents have not raised any concerns of prejudice. The addition of the two respondents appears to introduce an individual and an entity that may be best suited to facilitate remedies or resolution. It appears that the requested amendments arise out of the facts already alleged and are the subject of argument in the parties’ pleadings.
ORDER
7Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to add two respondents and to amend the Application as set out in the Request is granted. The respondents are required to file with the Tribunal, copied to the applicant, an amended Response within 35 days of date of this Interim Decision. The applicant is required to file with the Tribunal, copied to the respondents, an amended Reply within 7 days from receipt of the amended Response. In accordance with these deadlines, the parties are also required to confirm in writing whether or not they are amenable to participating in mediation.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of January 2012.
‘Signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair