HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Eugene (Yevhen) Yermolenko
Applicant
-and-
Hugh Garner Housing Co-operative Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Yermolenko v. Hugh Garner Housing Co-operative Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Eugene (Yevhen) Yermolenko, Applicant
Self-represented
Hugh Garner Housing Co-operative Inc, Respondent
No submissions,
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to housing because of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and sexual orientation contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2In his Application, by way of remedy, the applicant initially sought monetary compensation by way of a subsidy on his rent.
3On August 19, 2013, he filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) in which he seeks to amend the remedy sought to include "punitive compensation" calculated with reference to subsidy figures for several months. On October 26, 2013, he filed a further RFOP seeking to amend his remedy, increasing the financial compensation he requests and seeking to have the Tribunal dismiss the office team at the respondent, and seeking an order for a letter of apology from officials at the respondent.
4The respondent has not filed any Response to the applicant's request to amend the remedy he seeks and the time for doing so has now passed.
5In Odell v. Toronto Transit Commission, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, the Board of Inquiry stated:
The Board has jurisdiction to amend complaints. In deciding whether or not to permit such amendments, the Board is exercising its discretion. The factors influencing how that discretion will be exercised include the following:
Whether the amendment would occasion actual prejudice to the other party;
Fairness;
The conduct of the party seeking the amendment;
The impact of the proposed amendment on the course of the hearing and any other parties.
6Although the above-noted decision was made before amendments to the Code came into effect, the Tribunal has permitted amendments to applications made under section 34, taking into account the stage at which the request is made, the nature of the amendment and the absence of any apparent prejudice.
7This matter has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. Any potential prejudice to the respondent in permitting this amendment can be addressed by allowing the respondent to file an amended Response. I see no reason to deny the applicant's request to amend the remedies he seeks.
8The amendments are made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the remedies sought, and without prejudice to any position the respondent may wish to take regarding these issues.
ORDER
9The Tribunal orders as follows:
The Application is amended to include the damages claim as stated in the applicant's October 26, 2013 RFOP;
Should the respondents wish to file an amended Response to address the amended remedial claim, the respondent is directed to file with the Tribunal, copied to the applicant, an amended Response within 35 days of this Interim Decision.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 20^th^ day of January, 2014.
"Signed by"
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair