Rajiv Sharma v. The Corporation of the City of Waterloo, Andrew Cooper, and Pat Lago, 2014 HRTO 1396

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Rajiv Sharma Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Waterloo, Andrew Cooper, and Pat Lago Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: September 18, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1396 Indexed as: Sharma v. Waterloo (City)

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services or facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents have filed a joint Response denying the allegations.

2The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to amend his Application and for an extension to file a Reply. Ultimately, a Reply was filed but the RFOP remains outstanding. The respondents have not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has elapsed.

3The amendment that the applicant is seeking to make is to remove the reference to sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Code from paragraph 1 of his Application, and replace those sections with section 1 of the Code. He submits that this was an error in the Application as section 5 pertains to employment while his Application pertains to services.

decision

4Rule 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”.

5In 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.

6In this case, the Application is still in the early stages of the Tribunal’s process. The proposed amendment is minor considering that services is identified as the social area upon which the Application is based as evidenced not just by the other wording of paragraph 1 of the Application, but also that part of the application form which asks an applicant to identify the area of alleged discrimination. There is no prejudice to the respondents, and I note that the respondents filed a comprehensive Response responding to the social area of services.

7Accordingly, the applicant’s request to amend his Application to reference section 1 rather than sections 5(1) and 5(2) in paragraph 1 of his Application is granted.

8I am not seized with this matter.