HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Nicole Wales
Applicant
-and-
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Brian Ballantyne and Mark Geene
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Indexed as: Wales v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Nicole Wales, Applicant
Self-represented
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc. Brian Ballantyne and Mark Geene, Respondents
Ted Kovacs and Melissa Roth, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2This Interim Decision is being issued in response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings filed by the applicant on April 22, 2014 ("RFOP"). The respondents provided written submissions responding to the RFOP on May 5, 2014.
3The applicant requests an order to amend her Application to include the narrative attached to her RFOP alleging a further act of discrimination that occurred on April 17, 2014 when she received a Last Chance Agreement and to include evidence regarding events that took place on March 13, 17,19 and 21, 2014.
4The respondents oppose the requests.
the law regarding amendments to the Application
5In deciding requests to amend applications 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 respondents. 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.
decision
6With respect to the timing of the requests alone, the hearing began on March 31, 2014 and it is prejudicial to allow amendments to the Application at this stage. The applicant already completed her evidence, and the hearing will resume with cross-examination of her by the respondents.
7The request to amend to include the allegations of discrimination on April 17, 2014 is denied.
8The request to amend the Application to include the events of March 13, 17, 19 and 21, 2014 has already been the subject of my ruling during the first two days of hearing. I ruled that the evidence would not be allowed because it did not deal with the relevant time period that is the subject of this Application. This request to amend the Application is denied.
order
9The applicant's request to amend her Application is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of May, 2014.
"Signed by"
Dawn J. Kershaw
Vice-chair