Louise Bark v. Corporation of the City of Kingston and Kingston Access Services, 2014 HRTO 1446

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Louise Bark

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the City of Kingston and Kingston Access Services

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: September 26, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1446 Indexed as: Bark v. Kingston (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Louise Bark, Applicant

Chantal Tie, Counsel

Kingston Access Services, Respondent

Trevor Fray, Representative

Corporation of the City of Kingston, Respondent

Sarah Gareau, Counsel

1The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking to amend her Application to reflect agreement amongst the parties of the proper subject matter of the dispute between them. I issued an Interim Decision on July 3, 2014, 2014 HRTO 966, allowing this amendment.

2In that Interim Decision, I noted that the respondent, Kingston Bus Services, filed a Response to the Request but that the City of Kingston, the other respondent, had not. In fact, the City of Kingston had filed a Response to the Request (Form 11), but it had been misplaced by the Tribunal and did not come to the attention of the appropriate staff until after the Interim Decision was released.

3Having reviewed the Form 11 filed by the City of Kingston, which does not object to the amendments subject to certain conditions, I confirm my Order found in the July 3, 2014 Interim Decision. I would, however, acknowledge this respondent’s caveat that, by consenting to the amendment, it is not agreeing to the factual allegations found in the amended Application, precluding itself from pleading further facts or prejudicing itself from bringing motions with respect to the amended Application.