HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Katrina Linfield Applicant
-and-
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc. Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: January 3, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 4 Indexed as: Linfield v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Katrina Linfield, Applicant Self-represented
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Respondent Ted Kovacs and Melissa Roth, Counsel
1This matter is scheduled for hearing in Toronto on February 4, 5 and 6, 2014.
2This Interim Decision addresses a number of Requests for Orders during Proceedings (“RFOPs” or “Form 10s”) filed by the parties and some case management issues.
The applicant’s RFOPs
3The applicant’s October 25, 2013 RFOP, in essence responds to an RFOP previously filed by the respondent on October 23, 2013. The applicant should have filed a Form 11 response to respond to the respondent’s RFOP. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that this Form 10 RFOP will be treated as a Form 11 response.
4On the same day the applicant filed a second RFOP in which she advises that, amongst other things:
a. She will be hospitalized for approximately 35 days and she does not wish to have any communications until after her release;
b. That she may have retained Mr. Pipe to represent her in some capacity;
c. That she anticipates filing a RFOP seeking production of documents;
d. That she wishes to amend her Application to include allegations of discrimination that occurred post-termination of her employment.
5The respondent filed a response to this RFOP, on the basis that it does not particularize the orders sought and/or the nature of the amendments.
6The Tribunal denies the second October 25, 2013 RFOP on the basis that the applicant has failed to identify the nature of the documents sought or the amendments that she seeks.
7On November 7, 2013, the applicant filed a third RFOP (the “November 7, 2013 RFOP”) in which she states that she wishes to clarify her previous RFOPs. This is an RFOP which the Tribunal will address in further detail below.
8Based on the applicant’s submission that she would be hospitalized and unable to participate in the proceedings, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on November 13, 2013, which directed that the matter would be held in abeyance until January 6, 2014.
9On November 19, 2013, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she would no longer be hospitalized for 35 days. In this communication the applicant attaches a fourth RFOP, the “November 19, 2013 RFOP”. In this RFOP the applicant states, amongst other things:
a. That she has reviewed the arguably relevant documents submitted by the respondent and that she wishes a number of documents to be excluded;
b. She discusses a number of other individuals and their experiences with the respondent and it appears that she seeks advice from the Tribunal about how these individuals can file Applications and consolidate them;
c. She seeks that her identity be protected from any public document; and
d. She seeks the production of a number of documents.
10On December 3, 2013 the respondent filed a response to the November 19, 2013, RFOP in which it takes the position that all arguably relevant documents have been produced to the applicant. The respondent also states that there is no basis for the exclusion of any documents at this stage.
11The Tribunal denies the applicant’s November 19, 2013 RFOP in its entirety. There is no basis for the applicant’s belief that all arguably relevant documents have not been disclosed to her. With respect to the applicant’s request to exclude various documents she can address this at the hearing, if and when the respondent seeks to introduce them into evidence. Further, there is no basis to grant the applicant’s request to anonymize her name; see, Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 974.
12Since there are no other Applications that have been filed there is no basis for the Tribunal to deal with the consolidation request. It is not the role of this Tribunal to provide legal advice to any party or individual.
The November 7, 2013 RFOP
13In the November 7, 2013 RFOP the applicant seeks to amend the Application to include various allegations, including allegations that post-date her termination from employment.
14On December 4, 2013 the Tribunal directed the respondent to reply to the applicant’s November 7, 2013 RFOP. The respondent filed its Form 11 response in which it consents to a number of amendments; however, it opposes any amendments that post-date the applicant’s termination from employment.
15In considering requests to amend applications under section 34 of the Code, 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(s). See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563. The Tribunal is also guided by what would be most fair, just and expeditious in the circumstances.
16The applicant’s Request to amend the Application was filed after the Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties. Further, the hearing has been moved up one month at the request of the parties. I am concerned that granting these amendments will delay the hearing.
17Having considered the matter, I am not prepared to grant any of the amendments sought by the applicant which post-date her termination from employment. In making this determination I have considered the following factors: the lack of specificity of the allegations made by the applicant and how they relate to the Code; that the parties have been involved in litigation since at least February 2013 and that some of these communications are in the context of this litigation; that some of the allegations appear to include issues with respect to other employees and that the applicant has failed to identify how these relate to her Application; and that it would significantly delay the hearing of the matter if the amendments are permitted. Of most significance is that the applicant’s employment relationship with the respondent ceased with the applicant’s termination from employment; as such, I am not satisfied that these allegations fall within the ground of “with respect to employment.” See, for example: Halliday v. Van Toen Innovations Incorporated, 2013 HRTO 583.
18However, the Tribunal will grant some of the amendments sought by the applicant, which will be identified below, and provide the respondent with the opportunity to file a Response to these allegations. These allegations occurred during the course of the applicant’s employment and/or provide further particulars of allegations previously made in her Application.
ORDER
19The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s November 7, 2013 RFOP is granted in part, and the Tribunal allows the amendment of the Application to include the allegations in the typed document attached to the Form 10, at paragraphs, 2, 3 and 9;
b. The respondent shall have 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision to provide a Response to these allegations.
c. All of the applicant’s other RFOPs are denied.
20The Tribunal reminds the parties that their hearing materials are due to be filed with the Tribunal and delivered to the other parties by January 17, 2014. The Tribunal may provide further directions to the parties after it has received these documents, including addressing some of the requests in the respondent’s outstanding RFOP.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of January, 2014.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair