Schuller v. Parlee, 2014 HRTO 257

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darlene Schuller

Applicant

-and-

Wilf Parlee

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: February 25, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 257

Indexed as: Schuller v. Parlee

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Darlene Marie Schuller, Applicant Self-represented

Wilf Parlee, Respondent Holly Chu, Representative

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend her Application to add allegations of reprisal relating to incidents that occurred after she filed her Application.

2By Application filed July 19, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of sex and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant is a tenant in a building owned by the respondent. The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because she is a person in receipt of public assistance. She also alleged that certain comments made by the respondent constitute sexual discrimination and/or harassment.

3The respondent denies that that he has violated the Code.

4The Application is scheduled for a hearing on August 8, 2014.

applicant’s Request to amend Application

5By Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed January 20, 2014, the applicant sought to amend her Application to add several allegations of reprisal relating to events that occurred after her Application was filed.

6The respondent opposed the applicant’s request to amend her Application. The respondent submits that the issues raised by the applicant do not constitute reprisal and/or that they are issues that fall within the jurisdiction of the Landlord Tenant Board.

7In 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, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926, 2009 HRTO 926.

8Having considered these factors, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The amendments relate to instances of alleged reprisal occurring after the Application was filed. Therefore, the applicant could not have included the reprisal allegations in her Application, as they relate to alleged incidents that occurred after she filed her Application. The respondent has failed to show that he will be prejudiced by the amendments. The hearing of the Application is scheduled for August 8, 2014 and the parties have yet to make any pre-hearing disclosure. As a result, I find that the amendment will not delay these proceedings or cause any undue prejudice to the respondent.

9For the reasons set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to amend her Application to add the ground of reprisal and the allegations contained in her January 20, 2014 RFOP. These amendments are made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the applicant’s allegations. They are also made without prejudice to any position the respondent may wish to take regarding these allegations.

Order

10For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted. The Application is amended to include the ground of reprisal and the allegations contained in the applicant’s January 20, 2014 RFOP.

b. The respondent has already filed detailed submissions addressing the applicant’s reprisal allegations in his Response to her RFOP. However, if the respondent wishes to file any additional submissions in response to the amendment, he may do so within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant may file a Reply to the respondent’s Response to her reprisal allegations within 35 days of this Interim Decision.

11I am not seized.