Turney v. Loblaws Supermarkets Ltd., 2015 HRTO 417

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Howard Turney

Applicant

-and-

Loblaws Supermarkets Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 417

Indexed as: Turney v. Loblaws Supermarkets Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Howard Tunney, Applicant

Self-represented

Loblwas Supermarkets Ltd., Respondent

Gordon Fitzgerald, Counsel

1This Interim Decision responds to Requests for Order During Proceeding (Requests) filed by the applicant and the respondent respectively. The hearing for this case is scheduled to begin on June 5, 2015.

2In his Application the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. In particular the applicant alleged that he was denied a promotion in August 2014 and another in 2008.

The applicant’s Request

3In the Request filed by the applicant he seeks to amend the Application. It is not clear what the content of the amendments are but appear to relate to further job competitions. Accompanying this Request is a request of the respondent for the pdocuction of documents.

4At this stage the Tribunal cannot assess the Request as it is entirely unclear what the applicant is claiming with respect to these amendments to the Application. I would also observe that it is likely too late to allow an amendment in the absence of consent – the hearing date was set almost two months ago. For these reasons the Request is denied. Nothing in this Interim Decision would prevent the applicant from filing a new Application setting out the particulars of any alleged claims.

The respondent’s Request

5In its Request the respondent seeks the dismissal of the allegation that relates to a job competition in 2008 arguing that this allegation is out of time being 6 years prior to the primary allegation in the Application and more than 6 years prior to the Application being filed.

6The applicant opposed the respondent’s Request but does not address the delay issue.

7The respondent’s Request is granted. The allegation with respect to a job competition in 2008 is not one the Tribunal can consider because it was filed well outside of the one year period contemplated by section 34(1) of the Code and the applicant has provided no explanation for the delay which might have allowed the Tribunal to waive the delay pursuant to section 34(1)(b).

8The extent to which this allegation might be relied on by the applicant as background to his allegations with respect to the 2014 job competition is left to the hearing adjudicator to determine at the appropriate time.