Jackie Correia v. Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, 2012 HRTO 501

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jackie Correia

Applicant

-and-

Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: March 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 501

Indexed as: Correia v. Ombudsman (Ontario)

1This Application is scheduled for hearing on March 19, 20 and 21, 2012. It had previously been scheduled for July 26, 2010, but was converted to a mediation for the reasons set out in a Case Assessment Direction dated June 30, 2010. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) to amend her Application filed July 5, 2010 and a Request to Intervene filed by the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 343 (“the union”) on March 6, 2012.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST TO AMEND HER APPLICATION

2When she filed her Application, the applicant was self-represented, but at the time of filing her RFOP, and now, she is represented by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (“the Centre”). In the RFOP, the applicant seeks to amend the remedies she is requesting. She is now seeking, as a financial remedy, $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, a letter of assurance and a public interest remedy. The respondent did not file a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has now passed.

31.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure permit the amendment of pleadings. Rule 1.7 states:

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

c) allow any filing to be amended.

4The Tribunal has permitted amendments to applications made under section 34 of the Code taking into account fairness, the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the amendments and the absence of any apparent prejudice. See Meecham v. 1216575 Ontario, 2010 HRTO 2278 at para. 4; Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336 at para. 7; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926 at para. 5.

5In these circumstances, I am prepared to allow the amendments. The RFOP was filed in July 5, 2010, the respondent has not objected to this request as it did not file a Response to the RFOP and has not identified any prejudice to it if the amendments were allowed. Furthermore, the nature of the amendments, the remedies being requested, is what the applicant is requesting and is not necessarily determinative of what the Tribunal would award in the event that the applicant were successful. Accordingly, the Application is amended as set out in the applicant’s RFOP.

The Union’s Request to Intervene

6The applicant identified in her Application that she was represented by the union. The union filed a Request to Intervene on March 6, 2012.

7The Tribunal indicated in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131 that:

A union or association nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in a bargaining unit it represents when the application alleges discrimination in employment. Absent exceptional circumstances, the applicant’s bargaining agent will be granted intervention status in Tribunal proceedings where it requests it.

8At the time of issuing this Interim Decision, the parties have not been required to file a Response to the union’s request. However, since this Vice-chair is on vacation next week, it is important to address this issue at this time.

9The parties are directed to file a Response to the union’s request by Thursday, March 15, 2012, only if they object to the union becoming an intervenor in these proceedings. If they object, then this issue will be addressed at the commencement of the hearing. If they do not object, then they are not required to file a Response to the union’s request. In any event, the extent of the union’s participation at the hearing will be addressed at the outset of the hearing.

10Given that the union may possibly be an intervenor, to the extent that there is any exchange of communications or documentation between the parties and the Tribunal from now to the commencement of the hearing, and apart from potential settlement discussions, the parties are directed to copy the union in these exchanges.