HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tyler Himmrich Applicant
-and-
The City of Hamilton Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Date: July 23, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1076
Indexed as: Himmrich v. Hamilton (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Tyler Himmrich, Applicant Self-represented
City of Hamilton, Respondent Daryn Jefferies, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceeding in which he seeks to amend the Application.
3The respondent has filed a Response opposing the applicant’s Request to amend.
DECISION
4Rule 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
In order to provide for a fair, just and expedition resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:
c) allow any filing to be amended.
5In granting amendments the Tribunal usually considers the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the amendment and the absence of any apparent prejudice.
6A Request to amend an Application is only necessary if the applicant seeks to assert new allegations of discrimination which are not contained in the original Application. It is not an opportunity for the applicant to introduce any documentary evidence or witness statements.
7I have reviewed the Request to amend and I find that it does not set out the material facts that form the substance of any new allegations of discrimination, including the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened, and the name of the individuals involved. Instead the applicant is seeking to introduce evidence in support of his original allegations through this Request. However, the rules provide that the parties must exchange all arguably relevant documents within 21 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing. The documents that the parties intend to rely upon, a witness list and witness statements are only filed with the Tribunal 45 days prior to a hearing. At the hearing these documents may be introduced as evidence if the adjudicator determines that these documents are admissible.
8The applicant also requests an amendment of the Application to seek as a remedy that the respondent be punished through ordering publication in a newspaper of what occurred. The respondent opposes the amendment on the basis that the Tribunal’s case-law has established that the purpose of the Code is remedial and not punitive. I find that this issue should be addressed by the adjudicator assigned to determine the merits of the case.
ORDER
9The Tribunal orders:
a. The issue of whether the Application should be amended to include as a remedy publication of this matter in the newspaper is left to the adjudicator assigned to hear merits of the case; and
b. All of the other requests in the applicant’s Request to amend are denied.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of July, 2014.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair