Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Bianca Parris Applicant
- and -
Canada’s Wonderland Company Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: February 3, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 249 Indexed as: Parris v. Canada’s Wonderland Company
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Bianca Parris, Applicant: Michelle Mulgrave, Counsel Canada’s Wonderland Company, Respondent: No submissions made
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 in employment on the basis of race.
2This Application is scheduled to be heard on February 9 and 10, 2012.
3On January 3, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) with the Tribunal, seeking to amend her Application. A Statement of Delivery to the respondent was also provided at that time.
4The applicant seeks to amend her Application by adding “gender” to the grounds of discrimination claimed, seeks to increase to $25,000.00 the amount requested for “general damages”, and seeks to add a public interest remedy in the form of a change to the respondent’s policy regarding the Appearance Standards pertaining to hair. She submits that the addition of the ground of gender requires no new facts to be put forward, and that it “reasonably arises from the allegations already made by the Applicant”. She submits that the increase in general damages flows form the additional ground of discrimination and that the request for a public interest remedy reasonably arises from the allegations already contained in the Application.
5The respondent has not filed a response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has now passed.
Amendments to the Application
6Rule 1.7 (c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended”.
7In determining requests to amend Applications under s. 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondent. See 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.
8While the request to amend has arrived at a relatively advanced stage in these proceedings, as the amendments do not change the nature of the matter before the Tribunal, nor will they necessitate further evidence, I find that it is appropriate to allow the filing to be amended in the manner the applicant seeks.
9The Tribunal makes the following orders:
a. The Application is amended to include an allegation of discrimination on the grounds of gender;
b. The Application is amended to increase the amount of damages sought for “general damages for injury to dignity” to $25,000.00
c. The Application is amended to add a request for an order for a public interest remedy in the form of a change to the respondent’s policy regarding Appearance Standards pertaining to hair.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of February, 2012.
”signed by”