HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Julie Carlisle
Applicant
-and-
Perfect Renovations Group
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Carlisle v. Perfect Renovations Group
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Julie Carlisle, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex and gender identity. This Interim Decision deals with a request to amend the Application filed by the applicant.
background
2The applicant alleges that a co-worker subjected her to extreme gender-based harassment at a work site and that the respondent failed to address the situation when she complained. The applicant alleges that the co-worker became so hostile that she decided to leave the work site and that the respondent dismissed her for doing so, despite her complaint of harassment. The respondent denies the allegations and states, amongst other things, that the applicant did not provide the respondent with the details of her allegations against her co-worker. The respondent confirms that the applicant was asked not to return to the work site after she left the site without notice.
The Request to Amend
3On September 22, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings in which she seeks to amend the Application. The respondent has not filed a response to the Request and the time for doing so has passed. Specifically, the applicant seeks to add allegation of reprisal resulting from her interactions with the respondent after she filed this Application. The applicant states that the respondent’s president called the applicant at her parents’ home, where she was living, and persisted in attempting to reach her there despite the fact that she informed him that she preferred to communicate by electronic mail. The applicant states that the respondent’s calls caused her parents to be fearful. The applicant states that the respondent’s president called her and sent her e-mail messages with a view to having the applicant attend at the respondent’s office to discuss the Application. The applicant states that the respondent’s e-mail messages became threatening. The applicant states that the respondent’s Response contains a veiled threat that the co-worker the applicant alleges harassed her felt that he should take action against the applicant for defaming him. The applicant states that the respondent’s actions have caused her incredible emotional stress that has harmed her health.
Analysis and Decision
4In determining requests to amend pleadings 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 respondent. See Ewing v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 1066.
5The applicant’s co-worker is not a respondent to this Application; therefore, any threat that he may have made cannot form part of the Application. The respondent did not oppose the applicant’s Request and I grant the Request to add the applicant’s other reprisal allegations on that basis. Having said that, it is not clear to me that these allegations, on their face, amount to a reprisal under the Code, but that is a decision for the hearing adjudicator.
Order
6The Tribunal orders as follows:
The Application is amended to include the applicant’s allegations regarding the respondent’s communications with her after she filed this Application, as set out in her Request for an Order During Proceeding filed on September 22, 2015, save and except the allegation that her co-worker considered taking action against the applicant for defamation; and,
Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent may file with the Tribunal and deliver to the applicant an Amended Response addressing the Amended Application.
7I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of October, 2015.
“Signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair