Tarik Ibrahim v. Hilton Toronto, 2012 HRTO 1534

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tarik Ibrahim Applicant

-and-

Hilton Toronto Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: August 7, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1534

Indexed as: Ibrahim v. Hilton Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tarik Ibrahim, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Hilton, Respondent

Michelle Alton, Counsel

Introduction

1The hearing in this file commenced on January 20, 2012 and continued on April 24, May 15, 16 and 18, 2012 and is scheduled to recommence on August 9 and 10, 2012. The Application was filed April 21, 2010.

2The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) dated July 8, 2012 requesting “reprisal” although it looks like a request to amend his Application by alleging reprisal. He provided two pages of particulars as well as several pieces of correspondence between the respondent and himself and requests that the Tribunal order that the “harassment and reprisal” cease immediately.

3The respondent filed a Response to the RFOP on July 23, 2012 opposing the applicant’s request and denying that harassment or reprisal is occurring against the applicant. The respondent submits that as the applicant has filed a second Application (file #2012-11582-I) with allegations that post-date the allegations contained in this Application and which contain almost identical allegations. A copy of the Application, Response and Reply in file 2012-11582 were provided by the respondent. The respondent also notes that the applicant previously sought to amend the Application in this file after the commencement of the hearing, which was denied by the Tribunal.

analysis

4In a previous Interim Decision issued in this Application, 2012 HRTO 740 (“the April Interim Decision”), the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request to amend his Application. While it noted in the April Interim Decision that many of the allegations that the applicant sought to rely upon in amending his Application pre-dated the date the Applicant filed his Reply, suggesting that the applicant had been aware of them for a period of time before the hearing commenced, it also noted, at para 16:

In Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven, 2010 HTO 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.

5Having reviewed the Application and Reply in file 2012-11582, I find that the allegations contained in the applicant’s RFOP are specifically set out in either his Application or Reply in file 2012-11582 and that the Response in that file addresses the allegations in that Application. It would not fair, just or expeditious to allow the applicant to amend the Application which is currently before me, which would require some witnesses to be re-called, further documents to be produced, and the respondent to file an amended Response. Accordingly, I decline to grant the request made in the applicant’s RFOP and the hearing will continue on the scheduled hearing dates.

order

6The Tribunal denies the applicant’s request as set out in his RFOP.