HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julie Villeneuve

Applicant

-and-

1379157 Ontario Inc. o/a Elegance School of Esthetics

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: April 22, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 556

Indexed as: Villeneuve v. 1379157 Ontario Inc.

APPEARANCES

Julie Villeneuve, Applicant

Chantal Tie, Counsel

1379157 Ontario Inc. o/a Elegance School of Esthetics, Respondent

Alayna Miller, 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 the provision of goods and services because of disability and reprisal.

2The organizational respondent filed a Response (Form 2) to the Application and the applicant subsequently filed a Reply and a Request for Order seeking to add Helene Adams, the principal owner of the organizational respondent, as an individual respondent in these proceedings. The applicant also seeks to substantially amend the remedies she is seeking. The respondent does not oppose adding the individual respondent but proposes that she be substituted as the sole respondent or that the respondent be identified as Helene Adams operating as Elegance School of Esthetics. The respondent does oppose the Request to amend the Application in respect of remedy.

3In light of the respondent’s position on the naming of an individual respondent, this issue is left to the parties to resolve; if they are unable to come to an agreement on the issue, the hearing adjudicator will determine the issue at the hearing.

Amending the Application

4The applicant seeks to substantially amend the remedies she will seek in the event that she is successful in establishing that there has been a violation of the Code by the respondent. The respondent opposed the request, asserting that the new remedies the applicant is seeking affected its risk assessment and the position it took at mediation.

5I find that it is appropriate to allow the applicant to amend the Application in the manner proposed. I note that a hearing date has not been set as of yet and accordingly there is ample opportunity for the respondent to respond to the amended Application if it wishes to do so. I also find that the claim of prejudice is not well founded for a couple of reasons. To begin with, to the extent that the respondent’s risk assessment of the case was informed by the applicant’s positions in the original Application, there is nothing preventing the parties from continuing their discussions in an attempt to resolve the dispute. It is also the case at the end of the day that the remedial consequences of a violation of the Code are determined by the Tribunal which is not bound by the position taken by an applicant in the Application or at the hearing.

Orders

6The Tribunal makes the following Orders:

• The request to amend the remedies sought in the event that a violation of the Code is found is granted. The respondent may file an amended Response if it wishes.

• The request to add an individual respondent and/or amend the style of cause is deferred to the parties to resolve. In the event that they are unable to do so, the issue will be addressed by the Member assigned to hear the case.

7I am not seized.