Gabriel Kudiabor v. 901399 Ontario Limited/LA Truck and Trailer, 2013 HRTO 342

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gabriel Kudiabor Applicant

-and-

901399 Ontario Limited/LA Truck and Trailer and Alfred Barrett Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: February 28, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 342 Indexed as: Kudiabor v. 901399 Ontario Limited/LA Truck and Trailer

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 3, 2011. The Application is scheduled for hearing on March 14 and 15, 2013. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request For Order During Proceeding filed February 11, 2013 that the Application be amended (the “Request”) and provide additional directions regarding the hearing.

REQUEST TO AMEND

2The Application was filed by the applicant prior to retaining a representative. The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability and age. Among other things, the applicant alleges that he was subjected to discriminatory comments and discipline. As a remedy, the applicant requests that the hostility stop and that he no longer be subjected to name-calling, cursing and racial statements.

3On February 11, 2013, the applicant filed the Request through his representative asking that the remedy be amended to include a request for an order of $25,000.00 in general damages; that the respondent have training in human rights and the duty to accommodate disabilities; and that the corporate respondent be ordered to draft and implement a comprehensive human rights policy. The applicant argues that the proposed amendments do not expand the scope or inquiry of the Application, there is no violation of natural justice and the respondents may make submissions as to the appropriateness of the remedy requested at the hearing. In support of his submissions, the applicant relies on various cases of the Tribunal including Lo v. MCJFC Food Enterprise, 2011 HRTO 26, and Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926.

4The respondents have not filed a response to the Request and the time for doing so has elapsed.

5Having regard to the submissions made including the absence of any opposition, the Request is granted subject to editing for clarity.

6The remedy section of the Application is amended as follows:

• The applicant requests the Application include an order of $25,000.00 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect to reflect the profound impact of the employer’s discriminatory behaviour. The amount is requested to reflect the humiliation, injury to dignity and hurt feelings he experienced. The applicant will give evidence as to the impact of the respondent’s behaviour.
• The applicant requests that the respondent be ordered to have training in human rights and the duty to accommodate disabilities.
• The applicant requests that the corporate respondent be ordered to draft and implement a comprehensive human rights policy.

OTHER DIRECTIONS

7The respondents have filed their documents but have not provided a list of witnesses and a summary of the expected evidence of each witness they intend to present. This may be due to inadvertence or the fact that the respondents do not intend to call any witnesses. The respondents are directed to immediately confirm their intentions in writing to the Registrar, with a copy to the applicant.

8Unless amended herein, the directions given in the Case Assessment Direction dated February 19, 2013 remain in effect.