Gut v. Roadtrek MotorHomes Inc., 2012 HRTO 253

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maria Gut

Applicant

-and-

Roadtrek MotorHomes Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: February 6, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 253

Indexed as: Gut v. Roadtrek MotorHomes Inc.

1The applicant filed this Application on March 2, 2011, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability.

2The applicant alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate her disability and that she was dismissed while she was absent due to disability. The applicant alleges that the respondent never processed her claim for short term disability benefits and did not inform her of the termination of her employment.

3The respondent filed a Response on May 18, 2011. The respondent denies the allegations of discrimination and submits that the applicant was dismissed because of her refusal to perform her job and insubordinate conduct. The respondent alleges that the applicant never requested accommodation and, had the applicant sought short-term disability benefits, it was her responsibility to file the insurance forms.

4On December 2, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to amend her Application. The applicant asks to amend the monetary remedy sought under section 10 of the Application. The applicant indicates that she is seeking to claim severance and general damages. The applicant explains that the matter of severance was not resolved outside of the Tribunal and consequently, the applicant now seeks severance compensation be included in the monetary remedy requested as part of the Application.

5The respondent did not file submissions in response to the applicant’s Request and the timeline has elapsed for doing so.

ANALYSIS

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 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. 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.

8In previous decisions, the Tribunal has allowed amendments to remedial claims prior to the commencement of a hearing. See for example, Guzman v. Senton Incorporated, 2011 HRTO 1480; Marino v. Compuware Corporation of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1390; and Loney v. Combusco Enterprises, 2011 HRTO 1050.

9The Application is still in the queue to be scheduled for hearing and, as such, no arguably relevant documents have been exchanged nor have parties provided summaries of their anticipated evidence. The respondent has made no submissions with respect to the proposed amendment and, therefore, no concerns of any prejudice have been raised with the Tribunal.

10It is noteworthy that the original Application did not provide any details about the remedies claimed and merely indicated that the applicant was seeking punitive damages. The proposed remedial amendment includes a claim for general damages and a claim for severance. I see no reason to deny the request to amend the remedial claim given that this information was not included in the original Application.

11Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to amend the Application is granted. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent may file a response with respect to the amended remedial claim.

12I am not seized of this matter.