Lugonia v. Arista Homes, 2014 HRTO 606

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Amanda Lugonia Applicant

-and-

Arista Homes Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: April 30, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 606 Indexed as: Lugonia v. Arista Homes

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Amanda Lugonia, Applicant Dijana Simonovic, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s Request to amend her Application.

2On August 19, 2013, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent discriminated against her with respect to employment because of her family status. Specifically, she alleged that the respondent terminated her employment because she was pregnant.

3On October 18, 2013, the respondent filed a Response, which denied the allegation of discrimination. Specifically, the respondent denied that it terminated the applicant’s employment because she was pregnant. Rather, the respondent stated, it terminated the applicant’s employment because she made inappropriate comments to other employees, and was therefore not suitable for the job for which she was hired.

4On January 23, 2014, the parties attended a mediation, which did not result in a settlement of the case. The hearing of the merits of the Application is scheduled for August 26, 2014.

5On February 19, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to (1) add the Code ground of “sex” and remove the Code ground of “family status”, and (2) increase the amount of monetary damages that she is seeking. The respondent has not filed a Response to the Request, and the time for doing so has now passed.

6In determining a request to amend an application, the Tribunal will consider a number of factors, including the nature of the requested amendment, the conduct of the party seeking the amendment, the prejudice to the respondent, and the impact on the course of the hearing. See Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre et al, 2008 HRTO 16; Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozeilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

7I see no reason not to grant the applicant’s Request. The request to add the Code ground of “sex” and remove the Code ground of “family status” is minor and clarifies the allegation of discrimination in the Application, but does not involve adding new allegations of discrimination. The request to increase the amount of monetary damages that the applicant is seeking is more substantial, but it relates solely to the relief sought by her, and also does not involve adding new allegations of discrimination.

8Furthermore, the applicant was not represented by counsel when she filed her Application, and there is no evidence that the respondent will suffer prejudice or that there will be a negative impact on the course of the hearing if the Request is granted.

9Accordingly, the applicant’s Request to amend her Application is granted. If the respondent wants to address the amendment to the Application, it may deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal written submissions in response within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision. Otherwise, it may address the amendment at the hearing.

10I am not seized of this matter.