Kamis v. Layalina Hall and Restaurant, 2015 HRTO 391

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rosina Kamis

Applicant

-and-

Layalina Hall and Restaurant

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Colin Johnston

Date: March 25, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 391

Indexed as: Kamis v. Layalina Hall and Restaurant

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rosina Kamis, Applicant

Zahra Binbrek, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on July 18, 2014, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability. The applicant alleges that she entered the respondent’s restaurant with her service dog and was told by staff that her dog was not allowed on the premises.

2The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) on February 23, 2015, seeking to amend her Application to request additional remedies. The additional remedies requested include the following: general damages in the amount $5,000.00; an order that all managers and owners of the respondent complete the Human Rights 101 e-learning module provided by the Ontario Human Rights Commission; and an order that the respondent post the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Code Cards on their premises in places visible to their employees and customers.

3The respondent did not respond to this RFOP. It appears from the correspondence that a copy of the RFOP was sent to the respondent by regular mail at the address set out in the Response. The respondent has not advised the Tribunal of a change of address. I am satisfied that the RFOP was properly served on the respondent and the time for responding has elapsed.

Analysis and Decision

4Rule 1.7. of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that:

In order to provide for a fair, just and expedition resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may:

c) allow any filing to be amended.

5I have considered the submissions and the case law cited by the applicant (see Lo v. MCJFC Food Enterprise, 2011 HRTO 26; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926; and Robert v. 289900 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 653) and find that it is appropriate to grant the applicant’s Request to amend.

6The amendments requested in this case relate to relief sought by the applicant and do not involve additional allegations or particulars of discrimination. The remedies requested are reasonably connected to the allegations contained in the original Application. I find that these amendments would not prejudice the respondent or unduly prolong the hearing.

7In the circumstances, I exercise my discretion to grant the applicant’s Request to amend the Application.

Order

8The Request for an Order is granted. The Application is amended to include the additional remedies requested by the applicant as described in paragraph 2 above.