Baden Russell-Petigrow v. The Georgian Bay Club, 2013 HRTO 1680

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Baden Russell-Petigrow Applicant

-and-

The Georgian Bay Club Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price Decision Date: October 7, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1680 Indexed as: Russell-Petigrow v. The Georgian Bay Club

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). On July 30, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to amend the remedies sought in her Application by increasing the amount of monetary compensation sought and by adding certain non-monetary remedies (“Request to Amend”).

2In her original Application, the applicant sought the sum of $5,000.00 as monetary compensation for the alleged infringement of her rights under the Code; an Order requiring the respondent’s senior staff to undergo “employment equity” training and training under the Code in respect of their treatment of employees; an apology; and confirmation that, if needed, the respondent would provide the applicant with a reference that would not impede her future employment prospects.

3In her Request to Amend, the applicant seeks to increase the amount of monetary compensation sought in her Application to $24,500.00, representing $20,000 in general damages and $4,500.00 in lost wages. In addition, the applicant seeks Orders requiring the respondent: to reimburse the applicant for the cost of two pairs of shoes; to provide the applicant with a positive letter of reference and a matching verbal reference; to undertake third party expert training for its owners, managers and senior staff with respect to their obligations under the Code, including the obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities; and to implement a policy reflecting the respondent’s commitment to the Code.

4The respondent has not responded to the applicant’s Request to Amend and the time for doing so has now elapsed. In any event, I cannot see how the respondent would be prejudiced by the granting of the applicant’s Request to Amend, particularly given that the hearing in this matter will not be held for several months.

5In keeping with the Tribunal’s general approach to such requests, the applicant’s Request to Amend her Application to increase the amount of monetary compensation sought and to add certain non-monetary remedies is granted. The amendments are made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the applicant’s allegations or the appropriateness of any of the remedies sought, in the event that liability under the Code is established.

order

6The applicant’s Request to Amend the remedies sought in her Application is granted.

7I am not seized of this matter.