Lone Thompson v. Display Potentials Inc., In Store Focus Inc. and Metro Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 1386

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lone Thompson

Applicant

-and-

Display Potentials Inc., In Store Focus Inc. and Metro Ontario Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: July 13, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1386

Indexed as: Thompson v. Display Potentials Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lone Thompson , Applicant

Beth Walden, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex and age. This Interim Decision deals with a request by the applicant to amend her Application.

2On June 26, 2012 the applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to include the social area of contracts under section 3 of the Code to her Application. The applicant submits that in their Responses the respondents claim that the applicant was an independent contractor rather than an employee. The applicant contends that although discrimination against an independent contractor may constitute discrimination in employment for the purposes of section 5 of the Code given the responses of the respondents the applicant wishes to include the social area of contracts under section 3 of the Code to her Application.

3The applicant further submits that in this instance there is no change to the underlying facts and the applicant is not seeking to add new allegations. Moreover, as no hearing or mediation has been scheduled and no new facts are being alleged there is no prejudice to the respondents to permitting this amendment.

4The respondents have not responded to the applicant's request to amend.

DECISION

5As the applicant noted the Tribunal will typically allow amendments to Applications taking into account the stage at which the request is made, the nature of the amendment, and the absence of any apparent prejudice. See Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

6In view of the early stage at which the Request to amend has been made, the fact that the applicant only seeks to add a further social area and the absence of any apparent prejudice to the respondents, I see no reason to deny the applicant's request.

7I order that the Application be amended accordingly. If the respondents wish to file amended Responses as a result of this order, they may do so within 10 days of receipt of this Interim Decision.

8I am not seized of this matter