HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Steve Gibson
Complainant
-and-
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
Ridgeview Restaurant Limited o/a Gator Ted’s Tap & Grill and Ted Kindos
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson
Indexed As: Gibson v. Ridgeview Restaurant Limited
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Steve Gibson, Complainant ) On his own behalf
Ridgeview Restaurant Limited )
o/a Gator Ted’s Tap & Grill ) Gary D. Graham, Counsel
and Ted Kindos, Respondents )
INTRODUCTION
1This Interim Decision is in respect of a Complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”), dated May 25, 2005, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The allegations in the Complaint relate to the smoking of medical marijuana. By letter dated July 4, 2007, the Commission referred the subject matter of the Complaint to the Tribunal.
Background
2After hearing submissions from the parties on a conference call on November 4, 2009, this matter was essentially held in abeyance pending the decision of the Tribunal in another matter alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services, and involving the smoking of medical marijuana. The Tribunal directed the Commission and/or the complainant to contact the Tribunal no later than 21 days after the decision in the other matter was released to indicate if they wished to proceed. That decision, Ivancicevic v. Ontario (Consumer Services), 2011 HRTO 1714, was issued on September 19, 2011.
3On October 6, 2011, the Tribunal received correspondence from the Commission indicating that the Commission would not proceed with the Complaint, but that the complainant wished to proceed. By Interim Decision dated October 20, 2011, 2011 HRTO 1897, the Tribunal confirmed that the Complaint would continue to be processed, without the participation of the Commission.
4On a conference call on November 30, 2011, the complainant confirmed that he wished to proceed with allegations related to the Code ground of reprisal as set out in the Commission’s correspondence dated March 25, 2008, and the Commission’s Supplementary Statement of Facts, Issues and Remedies, dated May 5, 2009. In the circumstances, the respondents were directed to respond to the Commission’s materials dated March 25, 2008 and May 5, 2009, by December 23, 2011, and the applicant was provided with an opportunity to file submissions in reply by January 7, 2012.
5On the conference call on November 30, 2011, the respondents indicated that they may wish to amend their pleadings in this matter. The Tribunal directed the respondents to provide the Tribunal and the applicant with proposed amended and/or additional pleadings, together with submissions in support of filing any amended and/or additional pleadings, if they wished to amend their pleadings, by December 23, 2011. The complainant was provided with an opportunity to respond to any proposal of the respondents to file amended and/or additional pleadings by January 7, 2012, and the respondents were provided with an opportunity to file submissions in reply by January 14, 2012.
REQUEST FOR AN ORDER DURING PROCEEDINGS
6The Tribunal confirms that, on December 22, 2011, it received the respondents’ response to the Commission’s correspondence dated March 25, 2008, and the Commission’s Supplementary Statement of Facts, Issues and Remedies, dated May 5, 2009. On December 22, 2011, the Tribunal also received a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) from the respondents, seeking to amend their pleadings, and attaching amended pleadings. On January 7, 2012, the Tribunal received submissions from the applicant in response to the respondents’ materials.
7In support of their Request to amend their pleadings, the respondents submit that there have been recent developments in human rights law with respect to the smoking of marijuana for medical purposes. They also submit that no hearing date has been set in this matter, and that the proposed amendments will not prejudice the complainant as it has been apparent to the parties that the facts addressed by the proposed amendments have been at issue in this proceeding.
8In his submissions, while the applicant appears to disagree with the substance of the proposed amendments, he does not appear to make any submissions opposing the amendments being made at this point in time.
DECISION
9Having reviewed the respondents’ proposed amendments to their pleadings, some of the proposed amendments appear to provide further particulars concerning where the complainant is alleged to have been smoking marijuana relative to the respondents’ premises. Other proposed amendments appear to provide additional reasons for why the complainant was advised that he would no longer be provided services at the respondents’ establishment.
10In my view, considering all of the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant the respondents’ Request to amend their pleadings. At this point in time, the Tribunal has not yet scheduled hearing dates, and the applicant has not identified any actual prejudice if the Request is granted. On the contrary, the applicant has responded in his submissions, although briefly, to the substance of the respondents’ proposed amendments that set out additional reasons for why the applicant was no longer provided services.
11The respondents’ Request is granted. The applicant may file a reply, in writing, to the respondents’ amended pleadings if he wishes to do so, within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
NEXT STEPS
12The Tribunal will be in contact with the parties and the proposed intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario, shortly to schedule a pre-hearing conference call to address the next steps in this proceeding. The Tribunal will also address the request of the Attorney General of Ontario to intervene at the pre-hearing conference call. Should the Attorney General of Ontario not wish to intervene in this matter, it is asked to advise the Tribunal and the parties as soon as possible.
Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd^ day of March, 2012.
”signed by”______________
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair```