HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Betts
Applicant
-and-
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Betts v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
John Betts, Applicant
Self-represented
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256, Respondent
Mark Lewis, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application, filed on April 15, 2014, alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate his mental health issues when it required him to obtain a certificate of qualification (the "certification") by January 1, 2013.
2The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend the Application, and production of certain documents by the respondent. The proposed amendments concern allegations of harassment from the summer of 2011 to May 2012. The alleged harassment relates to the applicant's inability to obtain his certification.
3The respondent objects to the proposed amendments. It asserts the allegations are unrelated to the discrimination alleged in the Application and are out of time.
Amendment
4In Aubin v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, 2011 HRTO 1281, the Tribunal held it will consider the following factors when determining whether to grant an amendment:
a. The nature of the proposed amendment;
b. The reason for the amendment;
c. The timing of the amendment request;
d. The prejudice to the respondents.
5In the Application, the applicant alleges that he has been subject to harassment because of his inability to obtain the certification. He states: "I was discriminated due to my mental health issues which the Union had me removed from my job with Jacob's. The executive of the union hall were harassing and intimidating me with being thrown out of the union if I did not obtain my Certificate of Qualification". The amendment requested by the applicant provides greater particulars of the alleged harassment set out in the Application.
6The respondent submits the amendments are out of time as they are alleged to have occurred between the summer of 2011 and May 2012. The Application was filed on April 15, 2014.
7The respondent submits further that the original allegations in the Application are also out of time. The respondent has not filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking a dismissal of the Application for delay.
8The Application states the last event occurred on December 28, 2012. The Application was filed on April 15, 2014. On the basis of these two dates, it appears the allegations may be outside of the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Code.
9However, in the Response, the respondent states it attempted to accommodate the applicant's disability in relation to the certification process on an ongoing basis. It pleads examples of its efforts, as recently as September 2013. On the basis of the respondent's pleadings, it appears that the accommodation process extended beyond the applicant's last date of employment on December 28, 2012 and into September 2013. The Application was filed seven months later on April 15, 2014. For this reason, the Application is not out of time.
10The harassment alleged in the applicant's request to amend the Application appears to be part of a series of incidents relating to the respondent's requirement that the applicant become certified, and comments allegedly made in relation to his inability to do so. In my view, if the Application is not out of time, the amendments are not untimely. The alleged harassment took place between the summer of 2011 and May 2012, seven months before the applicant's last day of employment on December 28, 2012. The accommodation process, as plead by the respondent, continued until September 2013 and the Application was filed in April 2014. In my view, the series of incidents alleged by the applicant is timely.
11The applicant also seeks leave to amend the Application to add specific claims for monetary compensation, including damages in the amount of $300,000.00. The respondent was put on notice that the applicant was seeking compensation in the Application. The amendment provides the respondent with further information regarding the damages claimed. The applicant's entitlement to these remedies will be determined at the hearing in this matter.
12The amendments are allowed. There is no prejudice to the respondent arising from the amendments as hearing dates have not yet been set. The respondent may respond to these amendments within 30 days of the date of this decision.
Production of Documents
13The applicant is also seeking production of certain documents from the respondent.
14The Tribunal sets out rules for the disclosure and production of documents by the parties in Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. This Rule is triggered by the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, which has not yet happened in this case.
15The Tribunal has exercised its discretion to allow for early production of documents, but only in exceptional circumstances. I find that the applicant has failed to establish the exceptional circumstances necessary for the Tribunal to grant the applicant's request for early production. There are no reasons given for the applicant's request for production. Given that the applicant has not identified any exceptional circumstance to justify production at this stage, his request is denied.
16The Tribunal will issue a Notice of Hearing setting out the parties' production obligations. The applicant may renew his production request following the deadline for disclosure if he believes that the respondent has not disclosed any arguably relevant documents or information. The Tribunal will consider and rule on the request if and when it is renewed.
order
17The amendments to the Application are allowed. The respondent may file a response to the amendments within 30 days of the date of this decision.
18The applicant's request for production of documents is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of October, 2014.
"Signed By"
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair