Morales v. Inquattro Fashion Group Corporation, 2013 HRTO 1501

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Eugenia Morales Applicant

-and-

Inquattro Fashion Group Corporation Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: September 5, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1501 Indexed as: Morales v. Inquattro Fashion Group Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Eugenia Morales, Applicant Self-represented

Inquattro Fashion Group Corporation, Respondent Erica Cappello, Counsel

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant's request to amend the Application to include allegations of discrimination because of disability.

2The original Application alleged reprisal and discrimination with respect to employment because of sexual orientation.

3The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. Following the summary hearing, I issued Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1140. I concluded that the Application could not be dismissed at this time as having no reasonable prospect of success because it would be necessary to hear evidence before the merits of the Application could be decided.

4During the summary hearing, the applicant indicated that she wished to amend the Application to include allegations of discrimination because of disability. She was directed to file a Request for Order During Proceedings. She filed a Request for Order During Proceedings on August 12, 2013. The respondent filed a Response to the applicant's Request for Order During Proceedings. The respondent opposes the request to amend the Application.

5In determining requests to amend Applications the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendment, the reasons for the amendment, the timing of the request to amend and the 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.

6As noted in the previous Interim Decision, the applicant raised allegations relating to alleged work-related injuries in the original Application and the respondent responded to those allegations. The applicant now seeks to add more details about the alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability.

7As the applicant notes, the Application is in the relatively early stages of processing. The parties have not yet been required to file any documents. While the allegations concern a different ground of alleged discrimination, they relate generally to the applicant’s allegations of discrimination in employment. The respondent argues that it will be prejudiced if the amendment is permitted as it may incur additional legal costs. The respondent also suggests that an earlier Interim Decision, dated June 7, 2013 in some way precludes this amendment request.

8The June 7, 2013 Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1031 dealt only with an adjournment request from the applicant, which was denied. It is not relevant to the present request to amend the Application. While I appreciate that the respondent may incur further legal costs associated with responding to allegations of discrimination because of disability, it does not appear that any response to the further allegations requires substantial new investigation.

9I am satisfied that it is appropriate to allow the applicant to amend the Application to include the allegations of discrimination because of disability. By October 4, 2013, the respondent may file an amended Response. By October 4, 2013, the respondent may also indicate that it wishes to try mediation at the Tribunal. If the respondent does not indicate a willingness to try mediation, the Tribunal will schedule a one-day hearing to hear evidence and submissions on the merits of the Application as amended.