Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Rose Marie Thomas Applicant
-and-
IATSE Local 822 (Toronto), IATSE Local 58 (Toronto), IATSE 129 (Hamilton), IATSE 461 Niagara, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund, Domenic Marcone, Cheryl Batulis, Heather Clarkson, Matthew D. Loeb, David Mirvish and Blair Egglestone Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: August 16, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1582 Indexed as: Thomas v. IATSE Local 822 (Toronto)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Rose Marie Thomas, Applicant Self-represented
IATSE Local 822 (Toronto), IATSE Local 58 (Toronto), IATSE 129 (Hamilton), IATSE 461 Niagara, Cheryl Batulis, Heather Clarkson, Matthew D. Loeb, and Blair Egglestone, Respondents Andrea Bowker, Counsel
David Mirvish, Respondent Stephen A. Bernofsky, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability, sex, sexual solicitation or advances and reprisal.
2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request to amend the Application. In the Form 10, the applicant explains that she wishes numerous documents to be attached to the Application so the respondents can have an opportunity to respond to the allegations contained therein. The majority of the documents that she attaches are documents that she has filed with respect to another Application which is being heard by the Tribunal.
3The respondent David Miorvish opposes the Request to amend on the basis that the applicant does not set out in any detail the order that she is requesting.
4Ms. Bowker, on behalf of her clients, opposes the Request to amend on the basis that the applicant is simply seeking to have documents appended to her Application and that this is not the appropriate time or manner to do so.
DECISION
5The applicant’s Request to amend the Application is denied for the reasons that follow.
6The Request to amend does not set out the material facts that form the substance of any new allegations of discrimination, including the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened, and the name of the individuals or organizations involved. Preferably, this should be in a chronological order. This information is required so that the respondents can understand the case that it has to meet. It is not fair to the respondents to require them to go through the documents filed by the applicant in order to locate any new allegations of discrimination which are not already contained in the Application.
7A Request to amend an Application is only necessary if the applicant seeks to assert new allegations of discrimination which are not contained in the original Application, but it is not an opportunity for the applicant to introduce any documentary evidence. The rules provide that the parties must exchange all arguably relevant documents within 21 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing. The documents that the parties intend to rely upon are only filed with the Tribunal 45 days prior to a hearing. At the hearing these documents may be introduced as evidence if the adjudicator determines that these documents are admissible.
8The Request to amend is denied, without prejudice to the applicant’s right to bring a new to request to amend the Application which complies with paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Interim Decision.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of August, 2012.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair