Davidson v. Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre, 2012 HRTO 227

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adam Stephen Davidson Applicant

-and-

Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre and Andrene Graham Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: January 31, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 227 Indexed as: Davidson v. Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre

WRITTEN APPEARANCES

Adam Stephen Davidson, Applicant ) Self-represented

Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre, ) Celia Chandler, Counsel Andrene Graham, Respondents )

1This Application was under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). This Interim Decision addresses a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") filed by the applicant.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant filed his original Application on August 19, 2010. A mediation was held on May 16, 2011 which did not resolve the Application. On November 30, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties to indicate that a hearing would be held on June 6, 2012.

3On December 20, 2011 the applicant filed a RFOP to amend his Application. The applicant provided an amended Application (Form 1) which appears to differ from the original only in that it lists two potential witnesses and reduces the applicant's proposed financial remedy for general damages by $5,000.

4The applicant states that the reason he is asking to amend his Application is that he wishes to contact two and possibly three witnesses who the applicant believes will be able to corroborate some of the allegations the applicant has made in his Application. The applicant briefly describes what their testimony might be and indicates his intention to provide his list of witnesses prior to the hearing. He further states that he may seek special damages in reference to a lost job.

5The respondents filed a Response to the applicant's RFOP in which they ask that the request be dismissed. The respondents submit that the proposed amended Application includes the same information that is included in the original Application. The respondents further submit that, pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the applicant has until April 23, 2012 to contact his witnesses and to provide a summary of their intended evidence.

DECISION

6In considering requests to amend Applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondent(s). See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

7I am satisfied that it is not necessary in the present case to amend the Application. The applicant is proposing no substantive changes in his requested amendments. He has simply identified two witnesses and has slightly altered a proposed financial remedy. He has not proposed any changes to his account of the alleged events that form the basis of his Application.

8The applicant has explained in his RFOP what the testimony of his proposed witnesses might be. However, the applicant should be providing the names of his witnesses and their intended testimony not by means of an RFOP and amended Application but by following the requirements of Rule 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. Rule 17 requires that a party provide a list of its witnesses and a brief statement summarizing the intended testimony of each witness to the other parties and to the Tribunal no later than 45 days before the date of the hearing. In this case, the deadline for providing this information is April 23, 2012.

9The applicant has suggested a small change in his request for general damages. He has also indicated that he wants to argue that there should be an award for special damages in the event that a violation of the Code is found. The applicant can make his arguments for financial remedies at the hearing. I see no necessity to amend the Application at this time to reflect a small change in proposed general damages or to add a claim for special damages.

10I am not seized of this matter.