Clarke v. Balan International, 2015 HRTO 418

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Clarke

Applicant

-and-

Balan International, David Rong, Robin Fan and Pet Valu Canada Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: March 31, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 418 Indexed as: Clarke v. Balan International

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

William Clarke, Applicant Self-represented

Balan International, David Rong and Robin Fan, Respondents Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, Counsel

Pet Valu Canada Inc.,, Respondent Christine Martin Bevilacqua, Representative

Introduction

1This Application, filed on September 2, 2014 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and marital status.

2On January 29, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking leave to amend the Application. The applicant did not indicate how he wanted to amend the Application.

3On January 29, 2015, the representative for Pet Valu Canada Inc. (“Pet Valu”) advised the Tribunal that it could not respond to the applicant’s RFOP because the request did not contain sufficient particulars of the amendments sought by the applicant.

4By letter dated February 6, 2015, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the Tribunal and the respondents with sufficient details of the amendments that he was seeking.

5On February 6, 2015, the applicant advised the Tribunal and the respondents that he wanted to amend the Application by including details of five violations of the Occupational Health & Safety Act and text messages between his father and one or both of the individual respondents. The applicant advised further that he wanted to amend the remedial portion of the Application by increasing his claim for monetary compensation to $60,000.00.

6The respondents did not provide a response to the applicant’s RFOP.

Amending the Application

7In Aubin v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, 2011 HRTO 1281, the Tribunal held it will consider the following factors when determining whether to grant an amendment:

a. The nature of the proposed amendment;

b. The reason for the amendment;

c. The timing of the amendment request;

d. The prejudice to the respondents.

8The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information regarding the proposed amendments. It is unclear to me how alleged violations of the Occupational Health & Safety Act constitute allegations of discrimination. It is also unclear how text messages between the applicant’s father and one or both of the individual respondents is discriminatory. As the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to support his request for these amendments, they are denied.

9The applicant has also asked to amend the Application by increasing his claim for monetary compensation. The respondents were put on notice that the applicant was seeking compensation in the Application. This amendment is allowed. There is no prejudice to the respondent arising from this amendment as hearing dates have not yet been set. The applicant’s entitlement to these remedies will be determined at the hearing in this matter.

Pet Valu

10By letter dated December 5, 2014, Pet Valu asked to be removed from the Application on the basis that there is no allegation against it in the Application.

11In order to be removed as a party, Pet Valu must file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) seeking this request. The parties will then have an opportunity to respond.

ORDERS

12The applicant’s request to amend the Application by increasing the monetary compensation sought to $60,000.00 is allowed. The applicant’s entitlement to this compensation will be determined at the hearing.

13This Application will now be placed in the hearing queue to be scheduled for a one day hearing.

14I am not seized of this case.