Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Adam Lebel Applicant
-and-
Liquor Control Board of Ontario Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: June 10, 2015 File Number: 2014-16454-I Citation: 2015 HRTO 768 Indexed as: Lebel v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario
1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for June 18 and 19, 2015 in London. A case management teleconference call was held on June 9, 2015.
Deferral
2By way of a Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed May 4, 2015, the respondent had requested deferral of the Application in light of two outstanding grievances brought by the applicant.
3The respondent advised during the case management call that the respondent is satisfied the grievances were withdrawn and it no longer is requesting a deferral of the Application.
Request to Amend
4The applicant filed a RFOP on May 21, 2015 requesting he be permitted to amend his Application to include events that have occurred since the Application was filed, including the applicant’s termination of employment. The respondent filed a Form 11 Response to the RFOP on June 2, 2015.
5The respondent agrees to the request to amend, but requests an adjournment of the hearing dates.
6The applicant submits the amendments should be allowed because:
a. The Application was filed before the applicant’s loss of employment in January, 2015; and
b. The events should be included in this Application in order that there can be a complete remedy for all the events..
the law regarding amendments to the Application
7In considering requests to amend applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (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.
8With respect to the timing of the requests alone, the hearing is scheduled for June 18 and 19, 2015 and I find it prejudicial to allow the amendments to the Application at this stage. However, the respondent does not object to the amendments and any prejudice can be alleviated with an adjournment of the hearing.
9It appears the new allegations, including termination, are linked to the original allegations. If the amendments are not allowed, the applicant could commence a second Application including the new allegations. In the interests of using the Tribunal’s and parties’ time and resources most efficiently, it makes sense to allow the amendments to the Application. Given the proximity of the hearing and the resultant prejudice to the respondent, however, the June 18 and 19, 2015 hearing dates are adjourned.
10I allow the amendments in accordance with the test in Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven, 2009 HRTO 926, by “taking into account the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the amendment and the absence of any apparent prejudice.” In light of my decision to allow an adjournment, there is no prejudice to the respondent. In allowing the amendments, it does not mean the applicant will be able to prove the allegations.
order
11The request to amend the Application to include the events to date, including the applicant’s termination from employment, is granted.
12The June 18 and 19, 2015 hearing dates are adjourned.
next steps
13By no later than July 3, 2015, the applicant shall deliver and file with the Tribunal an amended Application and a Form 23 Statement of Delivery confirming delivery on the respondent. The amended Application need only contain the new allegations since the date of filing the original Application.
14By no later than July 24, 2015, the respondent shall deliver and file with the Tribunal its amended Response and a Form 23 Statement of Delivery confirming delivery on the applicant.
15By no later than August 14, 2015, the applicant shall deliver and file with the Tribunal his amended Reply and a Form 23 Statement of Delivery confirming delivery on the respondent.
16By no later than August 28, 2015, the applicant shall deliver to the respondent any additional arguably relevant documents and shall file with the Tribunal a Form 23 Statement of Delivery confirming he has done so.
17By no later than September 18, 2015, the respondent shall deliver to the applicant any additional arguably relevant documents and shall file with the Tribunal