Iozia v. Canada Control Solutions International, Inc., 2013 HRTO 849

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Frances Iozia

Applicant

-and-

Canada Control Solutions International, Inc. and Stuart Schoeman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: May 17, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 849

Indexed as: Iozia v. Canada Control Solutions International, Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Frances Iozia, Applicant ) Daniel A. Lubin, Counsel

Stuart Schoeman, Respondent ) Matthew A. Fisher, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request to amend her Application.

2On July 26, 2011, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended. On December 7, 2011, the organization respondent filed a Response, and on March 26, 2012, the individual respondent filed a Response.

3On January 29, 2013, the parties attended a mediation, which did not result in a settlement of the case. The Tribunal has not yet scheduled a hearing.

4On February 1, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to increase the amount of monetary damages that she is seeking. On March 7, 2013, in response to a Case Assessment Direction that was issued by the Tribunal, the applicant specified that she is requesting to double the amount of damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, and that she is requesting a separate award of damages for loss of income and benefits. She also stated that she is requesting an order that the respondents be held jointly and severally liable for any award for loss of income and benefits.

5On March 19, 2013, the individual respondent filed a Response, which opposed the Request on the basis that the amount of monetary damages that the applicant is requesting for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect is out of proportion to the Tribunal’s relevant precedents, and that there is no basis for requesting damages for loss of income and benefits from the individual respondent, who was the applicant’s co-worker, not her employer.

6The organization respondent has not filed a Response to the Request, and the time for doing so has now passed.

7In Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre et al, 2008 HRTO 16, the Tribunal set out some of the factors to consider when deciding whether to allow an applicant to amend an application:

a) Whether the additional allegations flow from or form part of the continuum of facts of the original complaint,

b) Whether the allegations provide a useful context for considering the legal issues in the case,

c) The reasons for raising the allegations at this date,

d) The quality of the evidence to support the additional allegations,

e) Whether the amendment would occasion actual prejudice to the respondents so that a fair hearing on the issues could not be held, and

f) The impact of the proposed amendment on the course of the hearing and the other parties.

8In Miraglia v. University of Waterloo, 2009 HRTO 799, the Tribunal considered a similar Request to amend an Application, and made the following holding, which, in my view, is equally applicable to the case at hand:

The amendments sought in this case relate to relief sought by the applicant and do not involve additional allegations. A decision to permit the amendment is not based on any assessment as to the appropriateness of the relief. It is open to the respondent to present evidence and argument concerning whether the relief claimed is connected to the substance of the Application and whether it is an appropriate remedy given the circumstances of the case. As there is no prejudice to the respondent in allowing the amendment, the request to amend the Application is granted.

9Furthermore, given the fact that the Tribunal has not yet scheduled a hearing in this case and the requested amendment is essentially limited to increasing the monetary damages that the applicant is asking for, I do not believe that granting the applicant’s Request will have a significant impact on the course of the hearing and the other parties.

10Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to amend her Application is granted. If the respondents want to address the amendment to the Application, they may file an amended Response within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

11I am not seized of this matter.