HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Roselle Beausoleil
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Respondent
-and-
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Beausoleil v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Roselle Beausoleil, Applicant
Marianne E. Craig, Counsel
Her Majesty in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent
Jinan Kubursi, Counsel
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Intervenor
No submissions
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s April 24, 2014 Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to amend her Application to add further allegations.
2The Application was filed on October 12, 2012, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. The applicant alleges that she was treated differently from her male counterparts, as she was given a “letter of counsel-Non-Disciplinary” on her file in relation to something for which she says no one has ever been disciplined.
3A hearing in this matter has been scheduled for May 20, 21 and 22, 2014 in Toronto.
4On April 24, 2014, the applicant filed an RFOP seeking to amend her Application to include “all punitive actions taken against” her “following her grievances citing discrimination-based actions and the filing of her human rights Application” as allegations of further “punitive and/or discriminatory actions”, and alleges they are reprisal contrary to the Code. The only allegation particularized by the applicant is the respondent’s December 2013 decision to reassign her to a different unit effective January 7, 2014. She submits that the allegation “forms part of the continuum” of allegations stated in her Application. She submits that her request has been brought “within a reasonable period of time, being shortly after the incident itself occurred”. She submits that the respondent will not be prejudiced by the amendment.
5The respondent filed a Response to the RFOP on May 8, 2014. It opposes the applicant’s Request as she seeks to add additional facts and allegations shortly before the hearing and after the pre-hearing delivery of documents and witness lists. It submits that to expand the scope of the hearing in this way would be prejudicial to the respondent.
ANALYSIS
6In 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 other party. 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.
7For the reasons that follow, the applicant’s April 24, 2014 RFOP is denied.
8In her request, the applicant makes a vague reference to “punitive and/or discriminatory actions” which followed the filing of her grievances and her Application. Without particulars, it is impossible to consider the nature or timing of the referenced allegations, and to permit the inclusion of such allegations would not result in the most fair, just or expeditious proceedings.
9To the extent that the applicant’s April 24, 2014 RFOP seeks to include the respondent’s decision to re-assign her effective January 2014, the applicant’s request to amend is also denied. The allegation would broaden the scope of the hearing and the request is late, being filed less than one month prior to the scheduled hearing. In my view, the limited time the respondent has to respond to this allegation prejudices it.
10It is still open to the applicant to file a separate application in regard to the respondent’s decision to re-assign her in January 2014, should she wish to do so.
ORDER AND DIRECTION
11The applicant’s April 24, 2014 Request to amend the Application is denied.
12At the commencement of the hearing, the parties will be prepared to address the applicant’s October 29, 2013 Request to amend, including the issue of delay.
13The parties are reminded of the availability of mediation/adjudication in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
14I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of May, 2014
Signed by
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair