HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Bonnie Jones
Applicant
-and-
Camphill Communities Ontario Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Jones v. Camphill Communities Ontario Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Bonnie Jones, Applicant
Self-represented
Camphill Communities Ontario Inc., Respondent
Cheryl Pooran, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of record of offences and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondent filed a response denying the allegations in the Application.
2On February 3, 2015, the applicant filed a Reply in which she makes new allegations against the respondent including that she was discriminated against on the basis of her mental health.
3This Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s Request for an Order during Proceeding seeking the removal of an individual respondent which the applicant for the first time named in the Reply and that the applicant’s Reply should be struck as an abuse of process. Alternatively, the respondent seeks that the applicant be ordered to refile her Application. The applicant has filed a Form 11 response in which she opposes the respondent’s request and appears to raise some new allegations of discrimination.
DECISION
4The applicant cannot unilaterally add a party by naming them in her Reply. There is no basis to remove the personal respondent because he is not named as a party in the Application.
5The Tribunal does not usually strike pleadings or require parties to refile pleadings if they are not compliant with the Rules. The Tribunal must adopt a flexible approach to ensure that its processes are not too procedurally complex in light of the fact that many of the parties that appear before it do not have legal representation. However, the Tribunal should also ensure that no unfairness or prejudice results to the parties. The Tribunal should always be guided by what would be just, expeditious and fair in the circumstances of each case.
6Having considered the matter, I find that it would cause unnecessary delay for the Tribunal to require the applicant to refile her Application. The Tribunal will accept both the Reply and the allegations in the applicant’s Form 11 as amendments to the Application and the respondent will be permitted to file submissions in response to these new allegations.
ORDER
7The Tribunal orders:
a. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s Reply and Form 11 dated February 28, 2015 as an amendment to the Application;
b. Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision the respondent can file submissions responding to these amendments; and
c. In light of the fact that the applicant has already been permitted to file the above-noted amendments she will not be permitted to file any further submissions replying to the respondent’s submissions.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of March, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair