HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tracy Griffiths (Keith)
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Griffiths v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Tracy Griffiths (Keith), Applicant
Kingsley Laurin, Counsel
The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent
No submissions filed
Introduction
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 disability. The applicant alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate her disability by agreeing to accept a rescindment of her resignation made while she was disabled.
2The respondent filed a Response in which it submits that it has no obligation to reinstate an employee several months after the employee has resigned without good reason. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for November 22 and 23, 2012, pursuant to a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated April 17, 2012.
3The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) dated June 11, 2012, in which she seeks to amend her Application by requesting a non-monetary remedy, specifically “that the applicant be returned to work, in an accommodated position suitable to her condition as soon as one becomes available”. The respondent has not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has elapsed.
THE TRIBUNAL’S RULES OF PROCEDURE
4Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
1.7 In order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:
c) allow any filing to be amended.
analysis
5In Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven, 2010 HRTO 407, the Tribunal stated at para. 26 that it would consider the following factors in deciding whether or not to amend a pleading: (a) whether the amendment would occasion actual prejudice to the other party; (b) fairness; (c) the conduct of the party seeking the amendment; and (d) the impact of the proposed amendment on the course of the hearing and any other parties.
6The request being sought is essentially the heart of the issue raised in the Application, does not raise any new additional facts, and is being made well in advance of the November 2012 scheduled hearing dates. The respondent has not objected to the proposed amendment. In these circumstances, I allow the applicant’s request to amend her Application.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of July, 2012.
“Signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair