HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Iuliana Motoc
Applicant
-and-
Justin Styles and Pegasus Hospitality Group
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Motoc v. Justin Styles
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Iuliana Motoc, Applicant
Katelyn Weller, Counsel
Justin Styles, Respondent
Self-represented
Pegasus Hospitality Group, Respondent
Markos Markoulis, Representative
Backgound
1On July 7, 2014, the applicant filed an Application against, Justin Styles alleging discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On September 22, 2014, Justin Styles (the “personal respondent”) filed a Response denying the allegations in the Application. On October 3, 2014, the applicant filed a Form 3, Reply to this Response.
3On October 20, 2014 the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking an Order compelling the personal respondent to attend mediation.
4On October 28, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing scheduling the matter for a two day merits hearing in Toronto on March 12 and 13, 2015.
5On November 13, 2014, the applicant filed a Request to amend the Application and to add her employer Pegasus Hospitality Group (“Pegasus”) as a respondent to the Application. There was some delay in processing this Request because the applicant did not immediately deliver it to Pegasus.
6The personal respondent has opposed both the amendments and adding Pegasus as a respondent.
7Pegasus does not appear to have objected being added as a respondent to the Application. In fact, it has filed a Form 2, Response addressing in detail the allegations in the proposed amended Application.
REQUEST TO ADD PEGASUS AS A RESPONDENT
8The Tribunal, on its own initiative, or at the request of a party, may add parties to the hearing if it appears that they may have infringed a right under the Code. The Tribunal may add a party in order to provide for “fair, just and expeditious” resolution of an application, under s. 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. As noted in Marchese v. Fortinos, 2009 HRTO 25, the Tribunal will not add a proposed party in a perfunctory manner or as a matter of formality. Rather, it will decide whether it is appropriate to do so based on the parties’ materials and arguments. A recent statement of relevant considerations is set out in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513 at para. 12:
(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
9On a review of the written material filed in this matter Pegasus could as the applicant’s employer, depending on the circumstances, be the subject of findings or a Tribunal order. As such it is appropriate to add Pegasus as a respondent to the Application. I also note that the Request to add a party is also unopposed by Pegasus.
REQUEST TO AMEND THE APPLICATION
10In considering requests to amend applications under section 34 of the Code, 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, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563. The Tribunal is also guided by what would be most fair, just and expeditious in the circumstances.
11In the circumstances of this case, I find that the applicant’s proposed amendments are organized and provide clear particulars as against the respondents and should be granted. However, I have some concerns that the late addition of Pegasus as a respondent and the amendments to the Application may impact the ability of the respondents to properly present their cases which is currently scheduled to begin on March 12 and 13, 2015. I also note that both the applicant and Pegasus have agreed to mediation. In the circumstances it may be appropriate at this point to cancel the hearing and refer the matter to Mediation if both Pegasus and the applicant are still agreeable.
ORDER
12The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s Request to add Pegasus as a respondent is granted and the style of cause shall be immediately amended to reflect this change;
b. The applicant’s Request to amend is also granted and the revised Schedule “A” shall replace the allegations in the original Application;
c. The respondent Justin Styles is directed to file an amended Response to the amended Application within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant will have 14 days to file a Reply;
d. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant may file a Reply to Pegagus’ Response to the Application; and
e. The Notice of Hearing shall be sent to Pegasus, together with this Interim Decision. The parties shall have seven days to advise the Tribunal if they seek an adjournment of the hearing scheduled on March 12 and 13, 2015 in Toronto, in light of the fact that these amendments have been granted and/or because they wish to participate in Mediation. If either Pegasus and/or Justine Styles seek an adjournment then this request will be granted by the Tribunal. If the respondents are prepared to proceed to hearing on March 12 and 13, 2015, then their 16.1 production (delivering their arguably relevant documents) deadline shall be extended to February 6, 2015 and their deadline for their 17.1 documents, (the deliver and the filing of witness list, witness statements and the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing) shall be extended to February 16, 2015.
13I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of January, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair