HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Erzsebet Varga
Applicant
-and-
Basheer Shah-Dost
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Varga v. Shah-Dost
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Erzsebet Varga, Applicant
John Fraser, Counsel
Basheer Shah-Dost, Respondent
Ahmad Ammar, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend her Application.
2In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of her sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.
3The respondent filed a Response in which he denied the allegations in the Application.
4On October 13, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to amend the Application. The applicant is seeking to add details to an incident that was alleged in the Application when it was filed.
5The applicant indicates that the reason she is seeking to amend the Application is that the “amendment provides additional particulars and clarifies incidents” the she alleges occurred on a date previously named in the Application.
6The respondent did not file and response to this RFOP.
ANALYSIS
7In 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; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926 .
8Having considered these factors, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The amendments do not significantly expand the allegations. I do not find that allowing the amendment will significantly expand the scope of the hearing. The proposed amendment only provides additional facts to incidents that were already alleged. The applicant is not seeking to add any allegations of new Code breaches.
9The applicant made her request at a relatively early stage of proceeding. A date for hearing this Application has not been set. The respondent will be afforded time to amend his response to address the amendment if he wishes to do so.
ORDER
10For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted. The original paragraph 13 of Appendix “A” to the Application will be replaced by the amended paragraph 13 filed with the applicant’s October 13, 2015 RFOP.
b. If the respondent wishes to file amendments to his Response in order to address the amendments to paragraph 13 of Appendix “A” to the Application, he may do so within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
c. The applicant may file a Reply to any amended Response filed by the respondent within 14 days of receiving the respondents’ amended Response.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of December, 2015.
“signed by”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair