HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gabrielle Grant
Applicant
-and-
Accountivity Inc. and Michael Kay
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Grant v. Accountivity Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Gabrielle Grant, Applicant ) David Ertl, Counsel
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request to amend her Application.
2On April 23, 2012, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, and on June 21, 2012, the respondents filed a Response.
3On September 7, 2012, the parties attended a mediation, which did not result in a settlement of the case. The Tribunal has not yet scheduled a hearing.
4On October 9, 2012, the applicant’s newly retained counsel filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the Application to include remedies for both special and general damages. He stated that the applicant was self-represented when she filed her Application, and that the requested amendment is necessary to clarify and properly capture her intent.
5The respondents have not filed a Response to the Request, and the time for doing so has now passed.
6In Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre et al, 2008 HRTO 16, the Tribunal set out some of the factors to consider when deciding whether to allow an applicant to amend an application:
a) Whether the additional allegations flow from or form part of the continuum of facts of the original complaint,
b) Whether the allegations provide a useful context for considering the legal issues in the case,
c) The reasons for raising the allegations at this date,
d) The quality of the evidence to support the additional allegations,
e) Whether the amendment would occasion actual prejudice to the respondents so that a fair hearing on the issues could not be held, and
f) The impact of the proposed amendment on the course of the hearing and the other parties.
7In Miraglia v. University of Waterloo, 2009 HRTO 799, the Tribunal considered a similar Request to amend an Application, and made the following holding, which, in my view, is equally applicable to the case at hand:
The amendments sought in this case relate to relief sought by the applicant and do not involve additional allegations. A decision to permit the amendment is not based on any assessment as to the appropriateness of the relief. It is open to the respondent to present evidence and argument concerning whether the relief claimed is connected to the substance of the Application and whether it is an appropriate remedy given the circumstances of the case. As there is no prejudice to the respondent in allowing the amendment, the request to amend the Application is granted.
8Furthermore, given the fact that the Tribunal has not yet scheduled a hearing in this case and the requested amendment is essentially limited to clarifying the monetary damages that the applicant is asking for, I do not believe that granting the applicant’s Request will have a significant impact on the course of the hearing and the other parties.
9Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to amend her Application is granted. If the respondents want to address the amendment to the Application, they may file an amended Response within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of January, 2013.
”signed by”
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair