Sherry Brophy v. Ontario Drive & Gear Limited, 2013 HRTO 1248

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sherry Brophy

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Drive & Gear Limited

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: July 17, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1248

Indexed as: Brophy v. Ontario Drive & Gear Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sherry Brophy, Applicant

Pamela Krauss, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on May 1, 2013 () under section 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination on the basis of disability in respect to employment.

2On June 4, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) asking to amend her Application in order to add Ontario Drive & Gear Limited as a respondent and to remove Randell Thomson as a respondent. The only explanation provided for the request is “Respondent incorrectly identified on the application form”.

3The Tribunal has not received a response to the applicant’s request to amend the Application from either Mr. Thomson or Ontario Drive & Gear Limited.

4Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s 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”.

5The applicant requests that the Tribunal add Ontario Drive & Gear Limited as a respondent party. It is evident from the Application that Ontario Drive & Gear Limited was the applicant’s employer and the entity that the applicant refers to as “the respondent” in the narrative of events that she provides in her Application.

6There is no reference in the Application to Mr. Randell Thomson except that he is listed as an individual respondent. He is identified in the RFOP as Ontario Drive & Gear Limited’s representative.

7I am satisfied, based on the information before me that the applicant’s failure to identify Ontario Drive & Gear Limited as an organizational respondent on p. 4 of her Application is an oversight given the repeated reference to her employer as “the respondent” in the narrative of events. I am satisfied that naming Randell Thomson as an individual respondent rather that the respondent’s representative is also an error in entering information on the Tribunal’s forms.

8Accordingly, there is no need to apply the Tribunal’s formal tests as to whether Ontario Drive & Gear Limited should be added as a respondent or Randell Thomson removed as an individual respondent.

9The request to add Ontario Drive & Gear Limited as a respondent and to remove Randell Thomson is granted and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

10I am not seized of this matter.