HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Joel Lacoursiere
Applicant
-and-
Orangeville Police Service, Joseph Tomei, Lindsay White, Daniel Maloney and Wayne Kalinski
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Lacoursiere v. Orangeville Police Service
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Joel Lacoursiere, Applicant
Self-represented
Orangeville Police Service, Joseph Tomei, Lindsay White, Daniel Maloney and Wayne Kalinski, Respondents
William D. Anderson, Counsel
1The applicant filed an Application on January 15, 2014 alleging that the respondents reprised against him when he participated in a proceeding commenced at the Tribunal by a fellow employee who I will refer to as S.T.C.
2On September 23, 2014, the applicant filed a Request to amend his Application to include allegations that he was reprised against on the basis of his association with another employee who filed an application against the respondent who I will refer to as C.R.
3On October 7, 2014, the respondents filed a Form 11, Response opposing the amendments, on a number of grounds, including that the applicant was aware of the allegations in the Request to amendment when he originally filed his Application, they have no merits and that the allegations are untimely. The respondents also take the position that the amendments relate to issues that fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the processes of the Police Services Act. No case-law or legislation is submitted to support this position.
Decision
4Rule 1.7. of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
In order to provide for a fair, just and expedition resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:
c) allow any filing to be amended.
5In Lo v MCJFC Food Enterprise, 2011 HRTO 26 and Wozenilek v 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926 the Tribunal in determining whether to grant a request to amend a pleading considered the following factors: whether the request is brought prior to the hearing; whether the amendment would cause any delay in the proceedings, and; whether the amendment would result in prejudice to the other parties.
6I have considered the matter and reviewed the parties’ pleadings. At paragraph A-38 of the Application the applicant indicated that he believed that the respondents reprised against him on the basis of his participation and association with both S.T.C.’s and C.R.’s respective applications with the Tribunal. However, the narrative of the Application only relates to the allegations of reprisal with respect to the S.T.C. application. I find that the nature of the amendments proposed provide further particulars of the allegations already raised in the original Application in that he was reprised against on the basis of his association with C.R. Therefore, I do not believe that the allegations are untimely or that they are distinct from the original allegations in the Application.
7Regardless, with respect to the issue of timeliness I note that the Request to amend includes allegations of discrimination that fall within one year, including when the applicant alleges that his hours were further reduced by the respondent in late September 2013.
8Since this matter has not yet been scheduled for hearing I find that there is no resulting prejudice to the respondents and they will have time to address the amended Application.
9With respect to the respondents’ position that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the amendments, the respondents may raise that issue with the hearing adjudicator and if so they must provide detailed submissions and case-law well in advance of the hearing.
Order
10The Tribunal orders:
a. The applicant’s Request to amend is granted; and
b. The respondents may deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal an amended Response within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision; and
c. Within 14 days of the date of the receipt of the amended Response the applicant may file a Reply.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of November, 2014.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair