Novak v. Georgian Manor Resort and Country Club, 2015 HRTO 209

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wanda Novak

Applicant

-and-

Georgian Manor Resort and Country Club and Jennifer Moore

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: February 17, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 209

Indexed as: Novak v. Georgian Manor Resort and Country Club

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

2The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) on January 22, 2015 seeking to amend the Application to add what are described as further facts in support of the Application. A hearing is scheduled to take place on May 25 and 26, 2015.

3The respondent did not respond to the Request.

4In her Application although the applicant checked off disability as the ground of discrimination but the narrative of her Application in response to Question 8 makes no real reference to the applicant being a person with a disability.

5Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure state that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended.”

6In determining requests to amend Applications 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 Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336 ; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926 and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563 ).

7In the circumstances it appears that the requested amendments are substantial. On the other hand the amendments, which generally are that the applicant was a person with a mental health disability prior to and during the events described in the Application, make explicit an alleged connection to the Code which was far from clear in their absence. I also note that the respondent did not respond to the Request and to the extent that the amendment of the Application might be said to be prejudicial to the respondents it is for them to make that submission. I also observe that while relatively late in the proceeding there remains time prior to the hearing to ensure a fair, just and expeditious adjudication of this case. Accordingly the Request to amend the Application is granted. The respondent should respond to the amended Application within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

8I am not seized of this case.