Wing v. Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation, 2013 HRTO 2109

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Janice Wing

Applicant

-and-

Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation and Wayne Thomson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: December 20, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2109

Indexed as: Wing v. Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Janice Wing, Applicant

Self-represented

Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation and Wayne Thomson, Respondents

Marc DiGirolamo, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend her Application and the respondents’ request that the Application be dismissed.

2By Application filed February 11, 2013, the applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against her because of family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended. The applicant is a director of the organizational respondent. She holds the position due to her role as a municipal councillor for the City of Niagara Falls. The applicant alleges that the personal respondent who is the chair of the organizational respondent has refused to accommodate her parental obligations in the scheduling of board meetings. She also alleges that she risks losing compensation as a result because any member who misses two consecutive meetings will be removed from the organizational respondent’s board.

3The respondents deny that that they have violated the Code. They submit that the Application is frivolous, vexatious and made in bad faith. They submit that the Application has no merit and that it was filed for political purposes.

applicant’s Request to amend Application

4By Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed December 3, 2013, the applicant sought to amend her Application to add an allegation of reprisal. Specifically, she alleged that the personal respondent took action against her for filing her Application by making claims in the media about her attendance at board meetings.

5The respondents oppose the applicant’s request to amend her Application. The respondents submit that the applicant’s request is frivolous, vexatious and made in bad faith. The respondents submit that there is no evidence to support the applicant’s allegations and her Application amounts to political posturing.

6In determining requests to amend applications, 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, for example, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, [2008 HRTO 336, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., ](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/336)[2009 HRTO 926](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/926).

7Having considered these factors, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The amendments relate to instances of alleged reprisal occurring after the Application was filed. Therefore, they relate directly to the substance of the allegations contained in the Application. Also, the applicant could not have included the reprisal allegations in her Application as they relate to alleged incidents that occurred after she filed her Application. The respondents failed to show that they will be prejudiced by the amendment. The hearing of the Application is scheduled for July 3 and 4, 2013 and the parties have yet to make any pre-hearing disclosure. As a result, I find that the amendment will not delay these proceedings or cause any undue prejudice to the respondents.

8For the reasons set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to amend her Application to add the ground of reprisal and the allegations contained in her December 3, 2013 RFOP. These amendments are made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the applicant’s allegations. They are also made without prejudice to any position the respondents may wish to take regarding these allegations.

Respondents’ Requests to Dismiss and/or for summary hearing

9By Request for Summary Hearing filed December 16, 2013, the respondents requested that the Application be summarily dismissed. The respondents submitted that the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no employment relationship between the respondent and the applicant. Alternatively, the respondents submitted that the Application should be dismissed on the basis that the applicant has not provided a factual or evidentiary basis to make out her claims of discrimination.

10Both in their Response and in their Request for a Summary Hearing the respondents dispute the facts alleged by the applicant. They also provide their own version of the facts relevant to the Application.

11The respondent’s request to dismiss and/or request for a summary hearing is denied.

12Rule 19A(6) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that where a Request for Summary Hearing is denied the Tribunal need not give reasons. In the circumstances of this case, I will simply note that the issues raised by the applicant and respondent may only be resolved after hearing evidence in a hearing on the merits. The Tribunal’s summary hearing process is used to deal with those applications where the allegations may be legally insufficient to constitute a case to be answered. That is not the case here. Summary hearings do not involve the hearing of any evidence. In order to address the respondent’s refutation of the applicant’s version of the facts, a hearing on the merits must be held. Therefore, the respondents’ request to dismiss and/or Request for Summary Hearing is denied.

Request to Provide Notice

13In its Response, the respondents state that some of the conduct alleged in the amended Application occurred during a city council meeting. Accordingly, the respondents request that the City of Niagara Falls be given notice of these proceedings. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal finds it is appropriate to provide notice of the Application to the City of Niagara Falls as an interested party.

Order

14For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted. The Application is amended to include the ground of reprisal and the allegations contained in her December 3, 2013 RFOP.

b. The respondents have already filed submissions in response to the applicant’s reprisal allegations in their Response to her RFOP. However, if the respondents wish to file any additional submissions in response to the amendment, they may do so within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant may file a Reply to the respondent’s Response to her reprisal allegations within 35 days of this Interim Decision.

c. The respondents’ request to dismiss and/or request for a summary hearing are denied.

d. The City of Niagara shall be given notice of the Application as an interested party. The respondent must provide the Tribunal in writing with contact information for the City of Niagara. Once the Tribunal receives this information, the Tribunal Registrar shall provide the City of Niagara with a copy of the Application, the Response, the Reply as well as a copy of this Interim Decision.

15I am not seized.