Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Allen Rosario
Applicant
-and-
Thunder Bay Police Services Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Allen Christopher Rosario, Applicant
Self-represented
Thunder Bay Police Services Board, Respondent
Robert Edwards, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request to amend its Response.
2The applicant filed an Application on August 16, 2012, alleging discrimination with respect to the provision of police services on the basis of disability and creed. He also alleged that the respondent engaged in a reprisal against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.
3The respondent filed a Response on October 10, 2012 denying the allegations.
4On November 2, 2012, the applicant filed a Reply.
5On October 12, 2012, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking the Tribunal to allow it to amend its Response. The respondent sought to add one paragraph and an attached letter to its Response. The paragraph alleges that the applicant left the letter on a Police Sergeant’s vehicle. The letter makes a number of allegations against the Sergeant. According to the respondent, the letter was found on the vehicle the day after the respondent filed its Response. The respondent submits that the letter provides further evidence that the applicant has engaged in unacceptable conduct by making allegations against many people involved in the criminal justice system.
6The applicant opposes the respondent’s Request on the basis that the paragraph and the letter are irrelevant to the matter before the Tribunal.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
7For the reasons that follow, I find that the respondent’s Request to amend the Response to include the additional paragraph should be granted. The Response shall also be amended to include a reference to the letter in the list of important documents set out in the Response.
8Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended.”
9I am satisfied that the respondent should be permitted to amend its Response to include the additional paragraph. The respondent’s Request was made only two days after it filed its Response. The amendment is minor in scope and the information contained in it was not available to the respondent when it filed its Response. See Lachance v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited, 2012 HRTO 2091. I find that the Response should also be amended to include a reference to the letter in the list of important documents contained in section 15.
10I find that the applicant’s concerns regarding the relevance of the new information can be raised at the hearing into the merits of the Application. The applicant does not claim any other form of prejudice, nor is there any other prejudice likely to arise from the amendment.
11Accordingly, the respondent’s request to amend the Response to include the new paragraph and a reference to the new letter is granted. This amendment is made without any determination as to the relevance of the added information and without prejudice to any position the applicant may wish to take regarding the relevance of the information at the hearing.
ORDER
12The Tribunal orders as follows:
The Response is amended to add the new paragraph to Schedule “A” and a reference to the letter in the list of documents contained in section 15; and,
Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall file an amended Reply addressing the amendment to the Response.
13I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of November, 2012.
“signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair