Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Yvette Wratten Applicant
-and-
Toppers Pizza Georgetown Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: September 26, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1438 Indexed as: Wratten v. Toppers Pizza Georgetown
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Yvette Wratten, Applicant ) Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, Counsel Toppers Pizza Georgetown, ) Jack Braithwaite, Counsel Respondent )
1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for October 9 and 10, 2014 in Toronto.
2The applicant filed two Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP), dated September 15 and 16, 2014, respectively. In the RFOPs the applicant requests the following:
An order permitting the applicant to amend her Application as follows: a. To increase her claim for damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect to $25,000 and for lost wages to $24,000; b. To add a remedy of reinstatement to her former position or to the position of general manager at the Milton store; and c. To add allegations that her former manager’s interest in the applicant was not purely professional and was a factor in her termination for being pregnant.
An order for disclosure of the following documents: a. The personnel file of her former manager; b. The incident report related to the termination of another employee; and c. A copy of the policies and procedures to be followed by the respondent when terminating an employee.
3The respondent filed a Response to the RFOPs objecting to the requests. The parties agreed the RFOPs would be determined on the basis of the written submissions.
4The respondent submits the applicant’s requests are made in an untimely manner, and objects to the requests on the basis that the new allegations were not raised in the original Application and are prejudicial because they change the case the respondent has to meet.
5The respondent further submits the disclosure request is inappropriate because the documents requested are not arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application.
decision
Request to Amend the Application
6Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended”.
7In considering requests to amend applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondent. See, for example, 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.
8While s.34(1) of the Code applies only to when a person may apply to the Tribunal, and not to when an applicant can seek to amend an application, s. 34 does set out the expectation that applicants will act in an expeditious manner and not unduly delay alerting respondents to allegations so that they might know the case against them. It also acknowledges that the Tribunal, in exercising its discretion, can take into account whether respondents are prejudiced: see [Khokher v. Intercon Security Limited, 2011 HRTO 1493](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2011/2011hrto