Giuseppe Martino v. Ontario Physical and Health Education Association, 2014 HRTO 1342

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Giuseppe Martino

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Physical and Health Education Association

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: September 10, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1342

Indexed as: Martino v. Ontario Physical and Health Education Association

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Giuseppe Martino, Applicant

Self-represented

Ontario Physical and Health Education Association, Respondent

Carla V. Nassar, Counsel

1In this Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to services because of disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), by failing to provide American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpretation at a 2013 conference put on by the respondent, which conference the applicant was to attend. The Application also makes reference to the respondent allegedly having denied the applicant’s request for ASL interpretation at its 2007 and 2008 conferences.

2The Application is scheduled to be heard in Toronto on September 23, 2014.

3This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s July 2014 Request to Amend the Application to include a request for monetary compensation in respect of alleged injury to his dignity, feelings and self-respect as a result of the alleged infringement of his rights under the Code. In the Application that he originally filed with the Tribunal, the applicant did not seek monetary compensation.

4The respondent opposes the applicant’s Request to Amend on the basis that the applicant is not only seeking to amend his Application to include a request for monetary compensation, but is also attempting to raise new allegations as the basis for his request for monetary compensation. In particular, the respondent submits that, in his Request to Amend, the applicant is alleging for the first time that the respondent failed to provide him with ASL interpretation at its 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 conferences, whereas the sole allegation in the Application was that the respondent failed to provide the applicant with ASL interpretation at its 2013 conference.

5Although the respondent is correct that the applicant appears to raise allegations regarding the 2012 and 2014 conferences for the first time in his Request to Amend, as noted above, the original Application does contain allegations regarding the 2007 and 2008 conferences. However, it is unclear whether these allegations were included in the Application merely as background to the alleged infringement of the applicant’s rights in 2013 or whether the applicant was intending to put these forward as alleged incidents of discrimination in respect of which he seeks a remedy.

6There are no allegations about the 2009, 2010 and 2011 conferences in either the Application or the Request to Amend.

7In my view, the applicant’s Request to Amend his Application to include a request for monetary compensation should be granted.

8In his Request to Amend, the applicant expressly states that he is not seeking to change the facts that he originally pleaded in his Application or to add any new allegations to which the respondent would be required to respond. In other words, as I read the Request to Amend, the applicant is merely seeking to be compensated for the discrimination alleged in the original Application. On this basis, and in keeping with the Tribunal’s general approach to such matters, the Request to Amend is granted. Although the respondent asserts that it will be prejudiced if the Request to Amend is granted, there is no convincing explanation that this would in fact be the case, particularly since the applicant is not seeking to amend the facts upon which his discrimination claim is based.

9In the event that I have misunderstood the applicant’s position and he does wish to amend the Application to include new or additional allegations of discrimination that are not contained in his original Application, the applicant is required to file a Request to Amend the Application clearly identifying the amendments he is seeking as soon as possible and in any event within seven (7) days of the date of this Interim Decision. Any request the applicant may make to amend his Application to include new allegations of discrimination will be addressed if and when it is made. In the meantime, the respondent is only required to respond to factual allegations about the events raised in the original Application.

10As for the applicant’s allegations regarding the 2007 and 2008 conferences, the applicant should clarify in writing as soon as possible, and in any event within seven (7) days of the date of this Interim Decision, whether he is putting these forward merely as background to the Application or as alleged infringements of his rights in respect of which he seeks a remedy. If the applicant is seeking to adduce evidence regarding the 2007 and/or 2008 conferences as background to his discrimination claim, he should be prepared to explain at the hearing how such evidence is relevant to the allegation that the respondent discriminated against him in 2013. If, on the other hand, the applicant intends to argue that the respondent discriminated against him in 2007 and/or 2008, and to ask the Tribunal to order a remedy in respect of such alleged discrimination, he should be prepared to explain why these allegations are not outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because of delay, pursuant to s. 34(1) and (2) of the Code. The respondent should also be prepared to address these issues at the hearing.

ORDER

11The applicant’s Request to Amend the Application to include a request for $15,000 in monetary compensation is granted. The amendment is made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the applicant’s allegations or the appropriateness of any of the remedies sought, in the event that liability under the Code is established.