Johnson v. Ontario (Government Services), 2013 HRTO 1013

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dale Johnson Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Government Services Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: June 6, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1013 Indexed as: Johnson v. Ontario (Government Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dale Johnson, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Government Services and Jacques LeGris, Respondents Jennifer Richards, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on July 27, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability, age and reprisal.

2A summary hearing was held with respect to the original Application. On January 4, 2013, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 19 finding, that with the exception of one comment, the remainder of the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success of linking the applicant’s workplace concerns to various Code grounds. Although the applicant had not cited family status in the Application, the Tribunal also considered this ground. The Tribunal held that the single age-related allegation, specifically that the applicant’s First Manager’s stated that he was only comfortable mentoring younger people, would proceed in the Tribunal’s process.

3On February 28, 2013, the respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”), asking that the Tribunal remove the individual respondent from the Application.

4On March 8, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), asking to amend her Application to include a number of additional remedies and to add a broad range of allegations.

DECISION

Request to Remove Individual Respondent

5The Tribunal held that only that part of the Application that alleges the applicant’s First Manager stated that he was only comfortable mentoring younger people would continue in the Tribunal process.

6It appears that the individual respondent as named in the original Application is not the person identified as the applicant’s First Manager.

7Given that there are no live allegations as against the individual respondent, I find that it is appropriate to remove the individual respondent from this Application.

Request to Amend

8Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) 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”.

9In determining requests to amend applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the timing of the request to amend, and 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.

10I am satisfied that the applicant should not be permitted to amend the Application to add the various allegations detailed in her RFOP. The proposed amendments are extensive, encompassing a variety of alleged grounds that impugn a number of people. The applicant’s RFOP repeats many of her previous claims, as well as raising a host of new concerns which appear unrelated to the allegation of age discrimination against the First Manager. It appears that the applicant seeks to amend the Application to include issues with respect to family status that were previously dismissed by the Tribunal.

11This Application has been in the Tribunal’s process since July 2011 and a hearing is scheduled for this summer. The applicant fully participated in the summary hearing in November 2012. The applicant has provided no reasonable basis upon which the Tribunal could find that it was appropriate to amend the Application to add a broad range of allegations approximately 20 months after the Application was filed, six months after the parties’ participated in a summary hearing, two months after the summary hearing decision and five months before the commencement of the hearing. Further, it appears the applicant is attempting to expand the scope of her current proceedings to include the concerns that were dismissed by the Tribunal from her original Application.

12The applicant’s RFOP also indicates that she is seeking to amend her remedial claims to include an array of new remedies. I find that this matter can be dealt with by the adjudicator overseeing the hearing on the merits.

ORDER

13The Tribunal orders as follows:

i. The individual respondent is removed from the Application and the style of cause is amended to reflect the same; and

ii. The applicant’s request to amend the Application to add various allegations is denied. The applicant’s request to add new remedies can be dealt with at the hearing on the merits.

14I am not seized.