HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Esther Mancebo-Munoz
Applicant
-and-
NCO Financial Services Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Esther Mancebo-Munoz, Applicant ) Self-represented
NCO Financial Services Inc., Respondent ) Randy Ai, Counsel
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the respondent’s request to amend its Response and the applicant’s request for an extension of time to comply with her disclosure obligations.
2On October 18, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for May 13, 14 and 15, 2013. The Notice also set out the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses, and informed the parties that the disclosure deadline was March 29, 2013 with respect to the documents that they intend to rely upon and the witnesses whom they intend to call at the hearing.
3On March 4, 2013, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) to amend its Response. Specifically, the respondent stated that it was not represented by counsel when it filed its Response, and now that it is, it wants to file supplementary information. The supplementary information was attached in schedules to the RFOP.
4On March 15, 2013, the applicant filed a Response, which opposed the Request. She stated that not having counsel is not an acceptable reason for introducing new facts close to the hearing, and if the Request is granted, she should be given further time to disclose the documents that she intends to rely upon and the witnesses whom she intends to call at the hearing.
5On March 21, 2013, the applicant sent the Tribunal an e-mail, which requested an extension of four to six weeks to disclose the documents that she intends to rely upon and the witnesses whom she intends to call at the hearing. She stated that she needs an extension of time because she is seeking legal advice, but will not be able to obtain an appointment for four to six weeks.
6On March 22, 2013, the respondent sent the Tribunal an e-mail in response, which consented to the applicant’s request for an extension of time on the condition that the extension also applies to the respondent, and that the hearing be adjourned and rescheduled if an extension of four to six weeks is granted.
7In determining a request to amend a pleading, the Tribunal will consider a number of factors, including the nature of the requested amendment, the conduct of the party seeking the amendment, the prejudice to the other party, and the impact on the course of the hearing. See Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre et al, 2008 HRTO 16; Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozeilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.
8In my view, the respondent’s request to amend its Response should be granted. In light of the fact that the hearing dates were set in October 2012, the respondent should have retained legal counsel and made its request in a more timely manner. However, the proposed additional information is not lengthy and is related to the information in the original Response. Furthermore, there is no evidence that granting the amendment will result in prejudice to the applicant or have a significant impact on the course of the hearing. The applicant may file a Reply to the amended Response by no later than April 16, 2013.
9In the circumstances, the applicant’s request for an extension of time to disclose the documents that she intends to rely upon and the witnesses whom she intends to call at the hearing should also be granted. The respondent shall also be granted an extension of time. However, I am not willing to grant an extension of four to six weeks. The hearing dates were set in October 2012, which allowed for sufficient time to obtain legal advice in advance of the hearing. Accordingly, the applicant and the respondent shall comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses by no later than April 23, 2013.
10In view of the fact that the extension of the disclosure deadline is due to both parties’ failure to obtain legal advice/representation in a timely manner, the hearing will not be adjourned and rescheduled.
11The Tribunal makes the following orders and directions:
The respondent’s request to amend its Response is granted.
The applicant may file a Reply to the amended Response by no later than April 16, 2013.
The parties shall comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses by no later than April 23, 2013.
The hearing will not be adjourned and rescheduled.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of April, 2013.
“Signed by”
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair