HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tomasz Uracz
Applicant
-and-
Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ruth Carey
Indexed as: Uracz v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Tomasz Uracz, Applicant
Nicole Simes, Counsel
Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., Respondent
Sarah Whitmore, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability; and reprisal.
2This Interim Decision is being issued in response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed by the applicant with the Tribunal on November 21, 2013; and in response to two requests the respondent made in its Response to a Request for an Order (“RRO”) filed on December 5, 2013. The requests to amend the Application and Response are granted; and the personally named respondent is removed as a party to the Application.
The Applicant’s RFOP
3The applicant’s RFOP asks for an order permitting a number of proposed amendments to the Application. The proposed amendments are to the narrative of alleged events set out in the Application and primarily include: spelling corrections; additional details concerning some of the facts already pled; and new alleged facts. Included with the RFOP is an attachment that sets out what the narrative in the Application looks like if the requested amendments are granted.
4The respondent’s RRO does not oppose the applicant’s RFOP with respect to the requested amendments.
5The requested amendments do not raise new allegations of discrimination or reprisal so granting the RFOP does not prejudice the respondent; and the applicant’s request is timely as the hearing is scheduled to begin September 22, 2014. Given the respondent’s consent to the applicant’s request to amend the Application, the RFOP is granted.
The Respondent’s Requests in the RRO
6In addition to responding to the applicant’s RFOP, the respondent’s RRO of December 5, 2013, asks the Tribunal to permit it to amend its Response and requests an order removing a personally named respondent as a party to the Application.
7In response to these requests for order in the RRO the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) on December 23, 2013. The CAD says that the Tribunal is prepared to treat the requests for order in the respondent’s RRO as an RFOP, and directs the applicant to respond to those requests if he wishes to by January 10, 2014.
8On January 8, 2014, the applicant filed an RRO consenting to the respondent’s requests contained within its December 5, 2013, RRO.
9Attached to the respondent’s RRO of December 5, 2013, is a copy of what the Response looks like if the amendments are granted. The proposed amendments primarily consist of further relevant details concerning the alleged events. Given the applicant’s consent the request to amend the Response is granted.
10With respect to the request to remove the personal respondent as a named party to the Application, the applicant’s RRO of January 8, 2014, indicates there was some discussion between the parties during which the respondent confirmed that: there is no issue with respect to the vicarious liability of the corporate respondent for the alleged actions of the personally named respondent; the personally named respondent was acting at all times in the course of his employment for the corporate respondent; the personal respondent played no role in the decision concerning accommodation of the applicant’s alleged disability; and the corporate respondent can respond to the Application in its entirety. The applicant consents to an order removing the personal respondent as a party based on these assurances offered by the respondent.
11Given the circumstances here, I am satisfied it is appropriate to remove the personally named respondent as a party to the Application. I have amended the style of cause accordingly.
12I am not seized.
DECISION
13The narrative of events in the Application is amended as requested and as set out in the RFOP of November 21, 2013.
14The narrative attached to the Response is amended as requested and as set out in the respondent’s RRO of December 5, 2013.
15The personally named respondent is removed as a party to the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of February, 2014.
“Signed By”
Ruth Carey
Member