HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Debra Zalter
Applicant
-and-
Corporation of the Town of Ajax
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Zalter v. Ajax (Town)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Debra Zalter, Applicant
Self-represented
The Corporation of the Town of Ajax, Respondent
Andrew Zabrovsky, Counsel
Sharon Williamson, Steve Parish and Robert Vokey, Proposed Respondents
Andrew Zabrovsky, Counsel
1This is an Application filed on December 30, 2013 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of race, ancestry, place of origin, creed and gender identity. The respondent filed a Response denying the allegations in the Application on January 31, 2014.
2On February 26, 2014, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Hearing which is scheduled for July 15, 2014 in Toronto.
3In February 2014, the applicant made a Request for an Order during Proceedings (the "RFOP") in which she seeks to add parties Sharon Williamson, Steve Parish and Robert Vokey as personal respondents and to amend the remedies in her Application. The applicant initially did not send a copy of her RFOP to the proposed respondents and eventually this RFOP was filed with the Tribunal on March 7, 2014.
4On March 12, 2014, the respondent and proposed respondents filed a Form 11, response to the RFOP which opposes the addition of any party at this stage. The respondent does not address the applicant's request to amend the Application.
Request to add the personal respondents
5The Tribunal held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513 ("Smyth"), that when determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:
(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
6The only explanation for the amendment contained in the applicant's RFOP is that she forgot to include these three personal respondents in her original Application.
7Having reviewed the Application and the RFOP there are simply no allegations made against Sharon Williamson and Steve Parish which could support a finding that either of these proposed respondents infringed the applicant's rights under the Code. As such there is no basis to add either Ms. Williamson or Mr. Parish as respondents to this Application.
8There are allegations in the Application, including comments allegedly made by made by Robert Vokey, which could support a finding that he breached the Code. However, the respondent filed a comprehensive response to the RFOP in which it acknowledges that Mr. Vokey was acting in the course of his employment and that it is liable for his conduct pursuant to section 46.3 of the Code. I have some concerns that adding Mr. Vokey at this stage could delay the hearing which has already been scheduled. Further, the submissions filed by the applicant fall short of persuading me that it would be appropriate to add Mr. Vokey since there is simply no information provided by the applicant as to a compelling reason to add him as a respondent at this stage.
9Therefore the applicant's Request to add parties is denied.
Request to amend
10Rule 1.7 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states:
In order to provide for a fair, just and expedition resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:
c) allow any filing to be amended.
11In granting amendments the Tribunal usually considers the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the amendment and the absence of any apparent prejudice.
12The applicant Requests to amend the remedies in the Application to increase the monetary damages that the Tribunal should order in the event that she is successful. The applicant also wishes to amend the remedies to include a remedy for future compliance that "by-law officer's (sic) should have worked in the construction field prior to being an officer". Though the Tribunal has broad remedial jurisdiction, the applicant has not satisfied me that there is a link between this proposed remedial amendment that would promote future compliance with the Code. As such, it is denied. However, I find that it is appropriate to grant the amendment to increase the monetary damages sought by the applicant.
ORDER
13The Tribunal orders:
a. The applicant's Request to add the three proposed personal respondents is denied;
b. The applicant's Request to amend the Application to increase the monetary damages sought is allowed; and
c. The applicant's Request to amend the Application to include the remedy for future compliance is denied.
14I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of April, 2014.
"Signed by"
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair