Monteiro v. CSDC Systems Inc., 2012 HRTO 1895

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ana Maria Monteiro Applicant

-and-

CSDC Systems Inc. and Dan Mishra Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: October 4, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1895 Indexed as: Monteiro v. CSDC Systems Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ana Maria Monteiro, Applicant ) Cathy Davis, Representative

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s Request to amend her Application.

BACKGROUND

2On April 17, 2012, the applicant, who identifies as a single mother, filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, which alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to employment because of her family status. Specifically, she alleged that the respondents terminated her employment because she left work early to pick up her daughter who was sick.

3On May 25, 2012, the respondents filed a Response, which denied the allegation of discrimination. The respondents stated that the applicant had excessive absenteeism, and that they terminated her employment because she was absent on two consecutive days without notifying any of her superiors or the Human Resources Manager that she would be absent, and when asked to explain her absences, she provided unsatisfactory and untruthful reasons.

4On June 6, 2012, the respondents filed further documents in support of their Response. The documents included several e-mails which the applicant sent to her superiors during the tenure of her employment, which explained that she would be absent from work for health/medical-related reasons.

5On June 11, 2012, the applicant filed a Reply and a Request for an Order During Proceedings, which requested that her Application be amended to include the ground of “disability”. The respondents have not filed a Response to the Request, and the time for doing so has now passed.

ANALYSIS

6In determining a request to amend an application, the Tribunal will consider a number of factors, including the nature of the requested amendment, the conduct of the party seeking the amendment, the prejudice to the respondent, and the impact on the course of the hearing. See Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre et al, 2008 HRTO 16; Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozeilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

7In her Request, the applicant stated that she wants to amend her Application to include the ground of “disability” because after reviewing the materials filed by the respondents, she believes that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to employment because of both her family status and disability.

8I see no reason not to grant the applicant’s Request. The requested amendment relates to the same core event in the Application (the termination of the applicant’s employment), and flows from the Response and its supporting materials. In addition, there is no evidence that the respondents will suffer prejudice if the Request is granted. Furthermore, the Tribunal has not scheduled a hearing of the case. As such, there is no evidence that there will be a negative impact on the course of the hearing if the Request is granted.

9If the respondents want to address the amendment to the Application, they may deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal written submissions in response within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant may then deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal written submissions in reply within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

ORDER

10The Tribunal makes the following order and directions:

1. The applicant’s Request to amend her Application to include the ground of “disability” is granted.

2. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents may deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal written submissions in response to the amended Application.

3. Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant may deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal written submissions in reply.

11I am not seized of this matter.