HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Prakash Murugesan
Applicant
-and-
CIBC Mortgages Inc., Gerald McCaughey, Brent Belzberg, Gary Colter, Dominic D'Alessandro, Patrick Daniel, Luc Desjardins, Gordon Giffin, Linda Hasenfratz, Kevin Kelly, Nicholas Le Pan, John Manley, Jane Peveret, Leslie Rahl, Charles Sirois, Katharine Stevenson, Ronald Tysoe, Jacqueline Moss and John Silverthorn
Respondents
Great West Life
Proposed Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Murugesan v. CIBC Mortgages Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Prakash Murugesan, Applicant
Self-represented
CIBC Mortgages Inc., Respondent
John Field, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend his Application and his request for an extension of the deadline for his submissions in the summary hearing being held in this matter. The Interim Decision also addresses the request by CIBC Mortgages Inc. (“CMI”) that the Tribunal direct the applicant not to circulate materials to the media and members of the public.
REQUEST TO AMEND APPLICATION
2In 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.
3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) filed on February 5, 2015, the applicant requested to amend his Application to add an allegation that the respondents failed to accommodate his request for a trust account at the time that he signed two settlements with CMI.
4CMI opposes the applicant’s Request.
5I deny the applicant’s Request to amend his Application to add the above allegation. The Application was filed on November 6, 2013. Several steps have already been taken in this proceeding. Most importantly, the Tribunal is in the midst of summary hearing process which has been the subject of numerous Case Assessment Directions. The first part of the summary hearing which is being conducted in writing has commenced with submissions being received from the respondents. I do not consider it appropriate for the applicant to raise the proposed amendment at this late stage of proceedings, some 15 months after he filed his Application and several years after the facts that gave rise to the allegation took place. The facts that gave rise to the allegation were well known to the applicant when he filed his Application. I do not consider it appropriate to permit him to amend his Application at this late stage.
6The applicant also requested that the remedies sought in his Application be amended to include as a remedy that the Tribunal’s decision be posted prominently at all CMI offices, President's Choice Financial branches, all call centers and CIBC branches. I grant this amendment. The Tribunal has regularly granted such requests to amend remedies in past decisions. See, for example, Marino v. Compuware Corporation of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1390 and