Lovery v. Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited, 2015 HRTO 1680

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lisa Lovery Applicant

-and-

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: December 14, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1680 Indexed as: Lovery v Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lisa Lovery, Applicant Aida P. Abraha, Counsel

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited, Respondent Sonia Regenbogen, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1This Application, filed on March 11, 2015 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex and reprisal.

2On October 15, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking leave to amend the Application to add new allegations of reprisal that occurred after the Application was filed.

3The respondent does not oppose the Request provided no further amendments, that would prevent the timely adjudication of this Application, are allowed.

4The respondent provided its response to the new allegations set out in the Appendix “A” to the RFOP.

5A hearing of this Application is scheduled for March 10 and 11, 2016.

Amending the Application

6In 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.

7Having considered these factors, the amendments are allowed. The amendments provide particulars of the reprisal allegations for incidents that allegedly occurred after the time the Application was filed. There appears to be no prejudice to the respondent in allowing the amendments. It has advised that it does not oppose the proposed amendments and has already provided a response to the new allegations.

8The hearing of the Application is a few months away and this allows the respondent sufficient time to adequately prepare to respond to the new allegations.

ORDERS

9The applicant’s request to amend the Application is allowed. The allegations set out in Appendix “A” of the RFOP filed on October 15, 2015 shall become part of the Application.

10The responses to the new allegations set out in Schedule “A” to the Response to the RFOP shall become part of the Response. The respondent may file a further Response to the amended Application within 20 days of the date of this Interim Order.

11I am not seized.