Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Leo Jensen Applicant
-and-
National Utility Service (Canada) Ltd. Respondent
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: February 9, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 280 Indexed as: Jensen v. National Utility Service (Canada) Ltd.
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code") on May 14, 2010, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability. On August 24, 2010, the Respondent filed a Response denying the allegations. This Application is scheduled for hearing in Toronto on February 24, 2012.
2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant's Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the remedies sought in the Application (the "Request to amend") which was filed on February 2, 2012. On February 7, 2012, the respondent filed a Response opposing the Request to amend.
3The applicant seeks to amend the Application to increase the amount of general damages sought, and to add public interest remedies to include human rights training and a policy on accommodation of disability. In support of the Request to amend, the applicant states, that he was not represented by counsel at the time that he filled out his Application and asserts that he did not fully understand his rights at that time. Further, relying on the Tribunal's decisions in Lo v MCJFC Food Enterprise, 2011 HRTO 26, and Wozenilek v 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926, the applicant takes the position that the Request to amend is brought prior to the hearing, will not cause any delay and that the nature of the amendment does not prejudice the respondent.
4Though the respondent filed a Response opposing the Request to amend, the respondent has not provided a reason for the opposition, but instead renews its objections with respect to the merits of the Application. The respondent denies having breached the applicant's Code rights and asserts that it had no knowledge of the applicant's disability and that he was terminated from his employment due to poor performance during his probationary period.
Decision
5Rule 1.7. of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states:
In order to provide for a fair, just and expedition resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:
c) allow any filing to be amended.
6I have considered the submissions and the case law cited by the parties and I find that it is appropriate to grant the applicant's Request to amend. The amendment of the Application is brought in a timely manner, will not delay the proceedings or prejudice the respondent. Further, though the Request to amend is opposed, the respondent has not provided any reason for the Tribunal to decline the applicant's Request to amend.
Order
7Therefore, the Tribunal makes the following Order:
a. The Application is amended to include the remedies identified at paragraph 3 of Form 11 of the applicant's Request to amend.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of February 2012.
"signed by"
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair