Hinsley v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2013 HRTO 1573

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Megan Hinsley

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Ontario Disability Support Program)

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Trevor Hinsley

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Ontario Disability Support Program)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: September 19, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1573

Indexed as: Hinsley v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

APPEARANCES

Megan Hinsley and Trevor Hinsley, Applicants

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Ontario Disability Support Program), Respondent

Michelle M. Schrieder and Zachary Green, Counsel

Introduction

1These Applications were filed under section 34(1) of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and allege discrimination on the basis of disability.

2More particularly, the applicants, who are in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) benefits, allege that they were subjected to discrimination when the respondent denied them funding to apply for a criminal pardon, which is available to recipients of Ontario Works benefits.

3In an earlier Interim Decision dated June 5, 2013, 2013 HRTO 1004, the Tribunal ordered that these Applications be consolidated, and granted Megan Hinsley’s Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) to amend her Application with respect to remedy and how the alleged events affected her. The respondent was provided with an opportunity to file an amended Response addressing the amendments to the Application, and an amended Response dated June 26, 2013 was filed.

4By Notice of Hearing dated June 11, 2013, the Tribunal confirmed that these Applications are scheduled to be heard at an in-person hearing on October 16, 2013.

5The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address an RFOP filed by the respondent, and two RFOPs file by the applicants.

RFOPs

6On June 28, 2013, the Tribunal received an RFOP from the respondent to amend its Response to Trevor Hinsley’s Application. On July 8, 2013, the Tribunal received a Response (Form 11) from the applicants, opposing the respondent’s RFOP.

7On July 16, 2013, the Tribunal received an RFOP from the applicants for production of their ODSP files. On July 18, 2013, the Tribunal received a Response (Form 11) from the respondent, indicating that all relevant and admissible documents from the applicants’ ODSP files had been disclosed to the applicants.

8On July 22, 2013, the Tribunal received an RFOP from the applicants to amend their Applications. On July 31, 2013, the Tribunal received a Response (Form 11) from the respondents, indicating that it does not oppose the applicants’ RFOP to amend their Applications.

DECISION

9At a conference call on September 11, 2013, the Tribunal heard further submissions from the parties with respect to the above RFOPs.

10The applicants confirmed, as also set out in their correspondence to the Tribunal dated September 5, 2013, that a decision with respect to their RFOP for production was no longer necessary. As such, there is no need for the Tribunal to determine this RFOP.

11The respondent also confirmed that it had no opposition to the applicants’ RFOP to amend their Applications. In the circumstances, the applicants’ RFOP to amend their Applications was granted.

Respondent’s RFOP to amend Response

12The respondent’s RFOP to amend its Response to Mr. Hinsley’s Application was opposed by the applicants.

13The respondent seeks to amend its February 28, 2013 Response to Mr. Hinsley’s Application to add three brief submissions, including information that, on June 20, 2013, the respondent revisited the applicant’s request for funding for costs associated with an application for a pardon and approved funding. The respondent submits that this is new information that is relevant to the Application.

14The applicants submit, among other things, that the requested amendment contradicts the respondent’s earlier Response to the Application. They also submit that the amount of funding provided to them does not cover the cost of obtaining a pardon, and that they have been the victims of discrimination for the past two years.

15Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 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.”

16In determining requests to amend applications filed under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, 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. The Tribunal has also held that comparable considerations should be assessed in determining requests to amend responses, specifically, the timing of the amendment, scope of the amendment, reasons for the amendment and any potential harm to the applicant. See Lachance v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited, 2012 HRTO 2091.

17I am satisfied that the respondent should be permitted to amend its Response to include the additional information. The respondent’s Request was made almost four months prior to the scheduled hearing. The amendment is brief and contains new information post-dating the respondent’s original Response to the Application.

18Any concerns of the applicants’ regarding the relevance of the new information can be raised at the hearing. The applicants do not appear to claim any other form of prejudice, nor does there appear to be any other prejudice that is likely to arise from the amendment.

19This amendment is allowed without any determination as to the relevance of the added information and without prejudice to any position the applicants may wish to take regarding the relevance of the information at the hearing.

20I also note that the applicants appear to be opposed to the amended Response dated June 26, 2013, that the respondent filed in Ms. Hinsley’s Application. The respondent was provided with an opportunity to file an amended Response in an earlier Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1004, which granted an earlier RFOP filed by Ms. Hinsley to amend her Application. However, as I understand it, the applicants submit that the amended Response goes beyond addressing the amendments to the Application.

21The amended Response to Ms. Hinsley’s Application is essentially identical to the amended Response to Mr. Hinsley’s Application. In my view, the amended Response to Ms. Hinsley’s Application, although it contains new information, responds to the amendments to the Application that were granted concerning remedy. Even if the respondent’s amended Response to Ms. Hinsley’s Application went beyond addressing the amendments that were granted to the Application, which I do not believe it does, I would nevertheless allow the amended Response to Ms Hinsley’s Application for the same reasons that I have allowed the amended Response to Mr. Hinsley’s Application, as set out above.

ORDER

22The respondent’s RFOP to amend its Response to Trevor Hinsley’s Application is granted. For clarity, the respondent’s June 26, 2013 amended Response to Megan Hinsley’s Application is also allowed.

23I am not seized.