Delaney v. Peel District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1936

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Henry Delaney

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1936

Indexed as: Delaney v. Peel District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Henry Delaney, Applicant ) Self-represented

Peel District School Board, Respondent ) Roy C. Filion, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request to amend his Application.

2On May 12, 2011, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, which alleged that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his sex and age.

3On July 13, 2011, the respondent filed a Response, which denied the allegation of discrimination.

4On March 16, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for October 15, 16 and 17, 2012. The Notice also set out the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses, and informed the parties that the disclosure deadline was August 31, 2012 with respect to the documents that they intend to rely upon and the witnesses whom they intend to call at the hearing.

5On August 27, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the Application to include two allegations of reprisal with respect to incidents that occurred on May 30 and June 14, 2012.

6On September 10, 2012, the respondent filed a Response, which requested that the Request be dismissed summarily.

7In 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.

8In my view, the factors in favour of granting the Request are outweighed by the factors against granting it. The main factor in favour of granting the Request is that the new allegations of reprisal in the Request appear to relate to the original allegation of discrimination in the Application. The main factors against granting the Request are that the applicant waited more than 10 weeks to file his Request after the last alleged incident of reprisal, and neither party has disclosed documents or witnesses with respect to these new allegations in advance of the hearing.

9Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to amend his Application is denied without prejudice to his right to file a new Application with respect to his allegations of reprisal.