HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Christopher Del Duca
Applicant
-and-
Durham Region Transit Specialized Services
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Del Duca v. Durham Region Transit Specialized Services
1This Application, filed on April 22, 2014, alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondent has filed a Response denying the allegations and the applicant has filed a Reply.
2Since filing his Reply, the applicant has filed two Requests for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), one dated August 1, 2014 and the second dated August 22, 2014. The respondent filed a Response to a RFOP for the first one, but has not filed a Response to a RFOP for the second one and the time for doing so has elapsed.
3In his RFOPs, the applicant seeks to amend his Application by raising new incidents of discrimination. Specifically, pertaining to trips to be taken on July 24 and 31, 2014 and August 20 and 22, 2014.
4In the Response to the RFOP that it filed, the respondent objects to the applicant seeking to amend his Application pertaining to the July 24 and 31, 2014 trips. It submits that there is no breach of a Code protected right in the applicant’s request and that the request underscores the fact that the applicant is seeking a level of service above and beyond that offered by the respondent.
Decision
5Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for a fair, just and equitable 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.
7In this case, the Application is still in the early stages of the Tribunal’s process. While the parties have both indicated that they are agreeable to mediation, a mediation date has not yet been scheduled. The proposed amendments are further examples of alleged discrimination and they are timely. There is no prejudice to the respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal permits the applicant to amend his Application by relying upon the incidents as described in these two RFOPs.
8The respondent shall have until Friday, October 10, 2014 to file any Response to these new allegations.
9I am not seized with this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of September, 2014.
“Signed By”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair