HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Svitlana Kryvoshlykova
Applicant
-and-
Lontours Canada Ltd. and Stephanie Bishop
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Indexed as: Kryvoshlykova v. Lontours Canada Ltd.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Svitlana Kryvoshlykova, Applicant
Self-represented
Lontours Canada Ltd. & Stephanie Bishop, Respondents
Natasha Danson, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin.
2The applicant asks to amend her Application to include the following:
a. An allegation that the respondent failed to effect a timely and proper investigation of the allegation of a human rights complaint;
b. A claim for reprisal;
c. Additional remedies of reinstatement plus lost income.
3The respondent consents to the amendments to add a claim for reprisal and for the additional remedies of reinstatement and lost income, but does not consent to the amendment to include the allegation that the respondent failed to effect a timely and proper investigation of the allegation of a human rights complaint.
4The applicant made a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), dated July 10, 2013, asking for two amendments to her Application but did not include in that RFOP the request to include the allegation that the respondent failed to effect a timely and proper investigation of the human rights complaint.
5The applicant filed a further Request to amend her Application on July 19, 2013 to include the allegation that the respondent failed to effect a timely and proper investigation of the human rights complaint.
6The respondent filed its Response to both Requests on July 19, 2013.
Argument and Analysis
7The Tribunal on consent allows the amendments to the Application to include an allegation of reprisal and the remedies of reinstatement and wage loss.
8With respect to the failure to effect a timely and proper investigation of a human rights complaint, the applicant states generally that at the time she drafted the Application she was unaware of the remedies she now wishes to include, and that she did not have enough time to analyze and research each issue separately and thoroughly as she first had to deal with her health and family problems.
9The applicant filed her Application on December 27, 2012. The respondent states that the applicant raises additional facts that were known to her at the time she initially filed her Application, and her Reply of March 14, 2013. The respondent further states that the last amendment would result in undue delay and substantial prejudice to the respondent.
10After reviewing all the documents, I find that the amendment should be allowed, in accordance with the test in Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven, 2009 HRTO 926, by “taking into account the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the amendment and the absence of any apparent prejudice.”
11The applicant did not clearly specify in her Application that there was a failure to investigate a human rights complaint, but the facts upon which she relies, namely that she emailed the individual respondent in the fall of 2011 and told her that her behaviour was “bordering harassment,” is included in the original Application. No new facts are included in the amendment.
12In addition, the respondent consents to the applicant adding the allegation of reprisal, which also is based on the same fact, which therefore will have to be explored at a hearing in any event.
13On the face of the submissions, the addition of the allegation that there was a failure to investigate will not lead to any substantial delay because the proceeding is still in its early stages, or to any substantial prejudice to the respondent because the applicant alleges no new facts, and I allow it.
Order
14The Tribunal orders:
a. The Application will include the three amendments requested by the applicant in her RFOP dated July 19, 2013;
b. The respondent may file an amended Response within 14 days of this Interim Decision;
c. The applicant may file an amended Reply within 7 days of her receipt of the amended Response, if any.
Dated at Toronto, this 9^th^ day of August, 2013.
“signed by”
Dawn J. Kershaw
Vice-chair