Katherine Lin Lin v. William Rock Medicine Professional Corporation and William Rock, 2014 HRTO 989

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin Lin

Applicant

-and-

William Rock Medicine Professional Corporation and William Rock

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 7, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 989 Indexed as: Lin Lin v. William Rock Medicine Professional Corporation

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 employment because of sex. This Interim Decision responds to two Requests for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) filed by the applicant.

2On June 17, 2014 the applicant filed a Request seeking Orders as follows:

a. That the member who conducted the mediation be assigned to the hearing of the case;

b. That the hearing take place in Toronto and not Ottawa;

c. That the Ontario Human Rights Commission monitor the case.

3In respect of the June 17 Request the respondents were directed to respond only to the request to change venue. The respondents have done so and oppose the request.

4On June 20, 2014 the applicant filed a further Request seeking to amend the Application. Attached to the Request (Form 10) is an Application form which seeks to add a number of new grounds and may also make new allegations although this is not entirely clear. The respondent opposes this Request.

5The applicant’s Requests are denied.

THE JUNE 17 REQUESTS

6The applicant request that the member conduct the mediation be assigned to the hearing is denied. It is not the Tribunal’s practice that a mediator also conduct a hearing. The Tribunal has special Rules which allow an adjudicator to conduct a mediation if the parties consent and then go on to hear the case if mediation is unsuccessful. In the absence of consent of the parties granting the applicant’s request would be inappropriate.

7The applicant’s request for a change of venue is denied. The discrimination is alleged to have taken place in Ottawa and in accordance with the Tribunal’s practice that is where the hearing will be scheduled.

8The applicant’s request that the OHRC monitor this case is denied. The Tribunal has no authority to request or direct that the OHRC monitor cases.

THE JUNE 20 REQUEST

9The Request is denied. The issues raised in the Application appear to have occurred in 2012 and at the latest early 2013 coincident with the original Application filed in July 2013. The applicant offered no explanation for the delay in seeking to add these new grounds and allegations. The amendment is out of time and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it.

10Even if the Tribunal had the authority to deal with these new issues it would not be appropriate to do so having regard to the nature of the allegations and the timing of the Request. This Application was filed in July 2013 and relates to events said to have occurred in 2012 and perhaps early 2013. The pleadings stage of the Tribunal process has been completed for some time and a mediation took place on May 2, 2014. The case is ready for hearing and will be scheduled in due course. It is simply too late to be seeking to make substantial amendments to an Application related to allegations said to have occurred two years ago and almost 12 months after an Application has been filed.

11I am not seized.