Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Peggy Harrypersad Applicant
-and-
Peel District School Board Respondent
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1628 Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 6, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2291 Indexed as: Harrypersad v. Peel District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Peggy Harrypersad, Applicant Self-represented
Peel District School Board, Respondent Roy Filion, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of ancestry, colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin and race. This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings filed by the respondent seeking clarification of the nature of the dispute between the parties and the scope of the issues to be dealt with at the hearing scheduled to begin on February 12 and 13, 2013.
The Application
2In her Application the applicant alleges that she has experienced discrimination in employment on the grounds set out above. In particular the applicant alleges that she was not successful in a job competition in September 2010. The applicant alleges that when she asked why she was not successful in the job competition she was not given a “definite answer”. The applicant also alleges that she did not receive a performance evaluation in 2010. The applicant indicated that the date of the last event was September 27, 2010.
3The applicant’s bargaining agent, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1628, was granted intervenor status in 2012 HRTO 2146.
4As indicated above, this Application, filed in August 2011 relates to one or two job competitions in which the applicant was unsuccessful. The respondent responded to it on September 28, 2011 and the applicant filed her Reply on November, 1, 2011. An unsuccessful mediation took place in May 2012. The hearing is scheduled to begin on February 12 and 13, 2013.
5The respondent filed the Request for Order During Proceeding ( “Request”) referred to earlier on October 10, 2012 in response to an email received by it on October 5, 2012 in which it appeared to the respondent that the applicant was seeking to expand the scope of the Application with the addition of significant new allegations. Because it appeared that the applicant had not delivered the October 5, 2012 email to the Tribunal or the intervenor, the applicant was directed to do so and to provide her response to the Request 2012 HRTO 2146. The intervenor was also afforded the opportunity to provide their position on the issue but has not done so.
6The respondent takes the position that the applicant is seeking to amend the Application with the inclusion of new allegations at a late stage of the proceeding. The respondent also states that some of these new allegations are untimely and/or relate to other cases which have settled.
7The Request of the respondent is granted.
8Although the applicant has not filed a Request to amend the Application by her delivery of the October 5 2012 email this is in effect what she has attempted to do. In considering requests to amend applications filed 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 and the prejudice to the other parties if the request were granted. See Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336.
9In the October 5, 2012 email referred to above, the applicant characterizes the nature of the Application as being concerned with “charges of prejudice and racial discrimination against South Asians generally and myself in particular”. The applicant makes the following new allegations in support of this general claim:
a. That the respondent Hill has shown hostility towards South Asians by hiring none as teaching or support staff in his 3.5 years at the school;
b. The respondent Hill tried to sabotage the 2010 Divali celebrations at the school