Delgado v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2015 HRTO 262

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sylvia Delgado

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Jill St. Clair

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2316

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman Date: March 5, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 262 Indexed as: Delgado v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sylvia Delgado, Applicant

Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Jill St. Clair, Respondents

Daniel B. Fogel, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2316, Intervenor

Alycia Shaw, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s February 6, 2015 Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) asking to amend her Application.

3By way of background, on October 3, 2014, the applicant filed her first RFOP seeking to amend her Application to include further allegations. In response, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the applicant to file a schedule to the RFOP containing only the additional allegations without any submissions on other issues. She did not comply with this direction.

4The February 6, 2015 RFOP does not include a separate schedule of proposed amendments. However, in support of the request, the applicant provides additional details about her relationship with the personal respondent and states that she wishes to include an allegation of reprisal. With respect to the details about her relationship with the personal respondent, the applicant appears to be simply providing a fuller explanation of the discrimination already alleged in the Application. With respect to the reprisal allegation, she describes several incidents which she believes constitute reprisal against her since she filed her Application with the Tribunal.

5The respondents filed a Response to the RFOP. They object to the applicant’s failure to file a separate schedule as directed in the CAD and assert that it is unclear what exactly the applicant seeks to include in her Application as pleadings. The respondents state they cannot properly respond to the applicant’s request to amend and therefore cannot properly defend against the new allegations.

6The intervenor takes no position with respect to the applicant’s request to amend the Application.

7Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states 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”.

8In considering requests to amend an application, 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(s). 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 .

9Having considered these factors, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. While it would have been preferable for the applicant to file a separate schedule containing her requested amendments, it is reasonably clear from the February 6, 2015 RFOP that she is requesting to amend the Application by including the additional details respecting her relationship with the personal respondent and adding an allegation of reprisal. There is no prejudice to the respondents in allowing these amendments and they may file an amended Response to the new allegations. Further, permitting the amendments will not unduly delay the proceeding.

ORDER

10The applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted. The Application is amended to include the additional facts and allegations contained in the February 6, 2015 RFOP.

11The respondents may file an amended Response and/or an amended Request for a Summary Hearing within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.