Labao v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 474

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Linda Labao

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

-and-

Toronto Police Association

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: March 20, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 474

Indexed as: Labao v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Linda Labao, Applicant

Erin Hallock, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board, Respondent

Patricia Murray, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on June 29, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, sex, sexual orientation and marital status.

2The parties attempted mediation on June 20, 2012, following which a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, dated November 15, 2012 was sent to the parties setting the Application down for a 3 day hearing on May 13, 2013 through to May 15, 2013.

3On December 21, 2012, following the exchange of arguably relevant documents, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (an "RFOP"), seeking to amend her Application to include allegations that took place between March 2012 and December 2012.

4The respondent has filed a Form 11, responding to the RFOP in which it objects to the amendment request.

5Rule 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".

6In determining whether requests to amend Applications will be granted, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed 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.

7Having reviewed the materials filed by the parties, I find that the requested amendments would significantly expand the scope of these proceedings, necessitate opportunities for the parties to amend their Response and Reply documents and, given the nature of the amendments sought, require the cancellation of the hearing dates already set.

8While the applicant argues the allegations relate to a continuing breach of the respondent's obligation to accommodate the applicant under the Code, given the kind of inquiry the new allegations would require, the significant issues that they introduce (such as the use of medical marijuana as a form of accommodation) and the fact that the request is made following the original exchange of pleadings, mediation, exchange of arguably relevant documents and on the eve of the hearing commencing, the request to amend the Application to include the allegations relating to events from March 2012 onwards is denied.

9It is open to the applicant to file a new Application to address the alleged discrimination experienced in 2012. Permitting an amendment of the instant Application, however, would be inconsistent with the Tribunal's mandate to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of matters before it. Accordingly, the Request to amend the Application to add these allegations is denied.