Lafferty v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 1247

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James Lafferty

Applicant

-and-

Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: Setember 18, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1247

Indexed as: Lafferty v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

James Lafferty, Applicant

Self-represented

Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, Respondent

Holly Reid, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend his Application.

2In the Application filed January 18, 2012, the applicant alleged discrimination in employment because of disability and creed. He also filed a grievance with his union.

3By Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 695, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the Application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

4In March 2015, the Application was re-activated on consent of the parties. The hearing is scheduled for March 7 and 8, 2016.

5By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed July 27, 2015, the applicant sought to amend his Application. He attached to his RFOP various clinical notes from his doctor and personal notes. By Case Assessment Direction dated August 28, 2015, I directed the applicant to file with the Tribunal, and deliver to the respondent, the text of the allegations he is seeking to add to his Application.

6By letter filed September 15, 2015, the applicant set out the text of his requested amendment which includes allegations that occurred between January 2012 and September 2012.

7In response to the applicant’s RFOP, the respondent submitted that the Tribunal should deny the applicant’s request on the basis that the incidents raised by the applicant are untimely. The respondent took the position that the applicant should have filed his request to amend the Application within one year of the incidents notwithstanding the fact that the Tribunal had deferred the Application.

Findings

8In determining 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 respondent. See, for example, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926 , 2009 HRTO 926.

9Having considered these factors, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The amendments relate to alleged incidents that occurred after the Application was filed. I do not agree with the respondent that the applicant should have filed his amendment request while the Application was deferred. If the applicant had filed his RFOP during the deferral period, the Tribunal likely would not have dealt with it since it had deferred all consideration of the Application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

10For the reasons set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to amend his Application. These amendments are made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the applicant’s allegations. They are also made without prejudice to any position the respondents may wish to take regarding these allegations.

order

11For the reasons set out above, The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted. The Application is amended to add the allegations contained in the letter he filed on September 15, 2015.

b. The respondent may file an amended Response to respond to the amendment within 28 days from the date of this Interim Decision. If the applicant wishes to file a Reply to any amendments made to the Response, he must do so within 14 days of receiving an Amended Response from the respondent.