Bellhouse v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 1255

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lisa Bellhouse

Applicant

-and-

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: July 18, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1255

Indexed as: Bellhouse v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lisa Danielle Bellhouse, Applicant

Todd Cook, Counsel

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Respondent

William Lemay, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend her Application.

2The applicant filed an Application dated November 17, 2011 alleging that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability when it failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her workplace injury. By Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 414, dated March 12, 2013, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s first request to amend her Application.

Request to Amend

3In her latest request, the applicant’s counsel states the following:

We wish to amend the Application to include discrimination in a hiring decision and further monetary compensation to reflect the psychological damage and expense experienced by the applicant.

4The respondent opposes the request on the basis that it lacks the level of specificity required under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The respondent also submits that granting the amendment requested would not provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of this matter. The respondent submits that adding further allegations would unduly complicate and delay the proceeding. In addition, the respondent notes that, at the material times, the applicant has been, and continues to be, an employee of the respondent. Therefore, according to the respondent, the allegation of discrimination with respect to a hiring decision is not sustainable. Finally, if the Tribunal permits the amendments, the respondent requests that the applicant be directed to provide all medical records in support of her claim that she suffered psychological damage and expenses relating to the alleged discrimination in this case.

Findings

5Although it is not perfectly clear, it appears that the applicant’s request to amend the Application to include discrimination in a hiring decision is a reference to Question A8 on Application Form 1A. That question must be filled out when an applicant is alleging discrimination before hiring. The applicant is asked to put an “x” in the box beside each item that describes how he or she believes he or she was discriminated against. One of the items on the list is “in a hiring decision”. Question A9 applies to alleged discrimination during employment. The applicant ticked the following boxes in response to this question: “in my rate of pay, overtime, hours of work, or holiday”, “in being denied a promotion”, “in scheduling”, “in being denied necessary accommodation or modified work in the workplace” and “in being denied a workplace opportunity (such as training opportunity)”. With respect to this last item, the applicant added “being trained to be placed in a suitable job”.

6In my view, the applicant appropriately responded to Question A9 on Form 1A in her initial Application rather than Question A8 since this latter question only applies if the alleged discrimination occurred before hiring (or in the hiring process). The applicant has at all material times been employed by the respondent and continues to be employed by the respondent. Therefore, Question A9 was the appropriate question to fill out on Form 1A. In my view, the items selected by the applicant on her original form appropriately capture the nature of the discrimination she has alleged in her Application. For these reasons, her request to amend the Application to include discrimination in a hiring decision is denied.

7The applicant’s request to amend her remedial claims to include further monetary compensation to reflect the psychological damage and expense she experienced can be dealt with by the adjudicator overseeing the hearing on the merits. The applicant will have the burden of justifying the remedies claimed at the hearing. She has filed with the Tribunal and delivered to the respondent the medical and other documentation she intends to rely upon at the hearing. I decline to order that she produce any further medical documentation to support her remedial claim. The question of whether the applicant has advanced sufficient evidence to justify her requested remedies will be dealt with by the adjudicator hearing the case. If the respondent takes the position that the applicant has provided insufficient medical evidence to support the remedies requested, it will be open to the respondent to make submissions in support of this position at the hearing.

ORDER

8The Tribunal orders the following:

a. The applicant’s request to amend the Application to include discrimination in a hiring decision is denied.

b. The applicant’s request to amend her remedial claims to include further monetary compensation to reflect the psychological damage and expense she experienced can be dealt with by the adjudicator overseeing the hearing on the merits.

c. The respondent’s request that the applicant disclose further medical records in support of her claim that she suffered psychological damage and expenses relating to the alleged discrimination is denied.