Andersen v. Paul R. Needham Funeral Homes, 2012 HRTO 434

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Deborah Andersen

Applicant

-and-

Paul R. Needham Funeral Homes Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: February 29, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 434

Indexed as: Andersen v. Paul R. Needham Funeral Homes

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Deborah Anderson, Applicant ) Christine Lundy, Representative

Paul R. Needham Funeral Homes Ltd., ) Andrea Bezaire, Counsel

Respondent )

BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed June 1, 2010, pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondent employer failed to accommodate her disability.

2The Application is scheduled for a hearing on its merits on May 28 - 30, 2012.

3On February 10, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Tribunal Form 10), seeking to file an amended Application.

4In submissions filed February 14, 2012, the respondent consented to the amendments to the Application requested by applicant, but with the following proviso:

The Respondent does not agree with the Applicant’s amended A9 in which it states that she was discriminated against in being fired. The Respondent takes the position that the Applicant’s employment was not terminated.

ANALYSIS

5Tribunal Rule 1.7 states in part:

In order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:

c) allow any filing to be amended;

6In 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, Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563 and Aubin v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Centre, 2011 HRTO 1281.

7The scheduled hearing date with regard to the merits of the Application is some months in the future. In my view there is adequate time for the respondent to address the new allegation of dismissal from employment. In the circumstances the respondent would not be prejudiced in granting the applicant’s request for amendment.

8In view of the stage at which the Request to amend are made, the nature of the amendments, the absence of any apparent prejudice, and the respondent’s overall consent, I see no reason to deny the applicant the requested amendments to the Application.

ORDER

9The Application is amended as per the Tribunal Form 10 of February 10, 2012.

10The hearing as scheduled will proceed to determine the Application on its merits.

11I am not seized of this matter.