Donna Tonn v. Grand Melvin Inc., 2014 HRTO 267

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donna Tonn Applicant

-and-

Grand Melvin Inc. operating as Great Clips and Kenneth Churchill Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: February 27, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 267 Indexed as: Tonn v. Grand Melvin Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Donna Tonn, Applicant Brenda Culbert, Counsel

Grand Melvin Inc. operating as Great Clips and Kenneth Churchill, Respondents Kenneth Churchill, Representative

Introduction

1This Application, filed on February 20, 2013 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The Application is proceeding to a hearing on June 23-25, 2014.

2By Notice of Hearing dated December 6, 2013, the parties are required to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing by May 9, 2014.

3On February 10, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking leave to amend the remedies sought in the Application.

Amending the Application

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.

5The applicant seeks leave to amend the Application to add specific claims for monetary compensation, and a public interest claim requiring the respondent to develop a human rights policy and train all staff on the policy. The applicant drafted the Application on her own and did not include itemized claims for general and special damages, and did not include a claim for a future compliance remedy.

6The respondents object to the requested amendments. They assert the applicant has not provided documentation to support the new monetary claim and dispute the accuracy of the claim. The respondents make further arguments regarding the requested amendments that may be unrelated to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

7The respondents were put on notice that the applicant was seeking compensation in the Application. The amendments provide the respondents with greater particulars regarding the amount of general damages and lost wages claimed. There is no prejudice to the respondents arising from this amendment. The hearing is not scheduled until June 23, 2014 and the parties are not required to file their hearing documents until May 9, 2014. The respondents are free to contest the applicant’s entitlement to the remedies sought at the hearing. The amendments are allowed.

ORDER

8The applicant’s request to amend the Application is allowed. The applicant must produce all documents relevant to the new remedies claimed by March 15, 2014, in the event those documents have not already been produced.