HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Harleen Banga
Applicant
-and-
Can-AIM High School
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Banga v. Can-AIM High School
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Harleen Banga, Applicant
Mindy Noble, Counsel
Can-AIM High School, Respondent
Joseph Irving, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend her Application.
2By Application filed February 4, 2014, the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that her employment was terminated in January 2014 because she was on a maternity leave.
3The Application is proceeding to a hearing on January 14, 2015.
applicant’s Request to amend Application
4By Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed July 25, 2014, the applicant sought to amend her Application to provide more information about her teaching background, and additional facts regarding the respondent’s contact with her during her maternity leave. The applicant also sought to amend her remedies by requesting two public interest remedies: human rights training on sex and pregnancy, and the development of a human rights policy.
5The respondent does not oppose the applicant’s request to amend the Application.
6In determining requests to amend applications, 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, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.
7Having considered these factors, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The applicant is not seeking to add new grounds of discrimination, rather, she is seeking to provide a fuller explanation of the discrimination already alleged in the Application. There is no prejudice to the respondent in allowing these amendments. The respondent was put on notice in the Application that the applicant was requesting remedies for the alleged discrimination. The respondent is not prejudiced by the fact that the applicant is now seeking public interest remedies, in addition to the individual remedies set out in the Application.
Order
8The applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted. The Application is amended to include the additional facts and remedies set out in the July 25, 2014 RFOP.
9The respondent may file an amended Response by December 22, 2014.
10The parties are reminded that their pre-hearing documents are due by December 1, 2014.
Dated at Toronto, this 24^th^ day of November, 2014.
“Signed by”
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair