HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Yanjun Shu
Applicant
-and-
2341164 Ontario Inc. o/a King-Mar Diagnostic Centre
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Indexed as: Shu v King-Mar Diagnostic Centre
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Yanjun Shu, Applicant
Linda Vannucci, Counsel
2341164 Ontario Inc. o/a King-Mar Diagnostic Centre, Respondent
Self-represented
1This Interim Decision determines the applicant’s requests to amend the Application and to extend the time for filing a Reply.
2The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”), seeking to amend the Application and an extension of time to file a Reply. In her Application the applicant alleges that she was terminated as a result of a workplace injury. Since the filing of her Application the applicant has retained counsel. In the Request the applicant’s counsel submits that the Application lacked particulars and that the proposed amendments provide important information detailing the factual basis of the applicant’s claims. The Request also seeks to increase the remedy sought. The respondent filed a response opposing the Request on the basis that it is based on lies and that the proposed amendments do not bring any new facts to the table.
3Rule 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
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.
4In determining a request to amend a pleading, the Tribunal will consider a number of factors, including the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the requested amendment, the conduct of the party seeking the amendment, the prejudice to the other party, and the impact on the course of the hearing. See Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 535; Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926.
5I have considered the factors above and grant the applicant’s Request to amend the Application. The proposed amendments clarify the allegations in the Application, correct the name of the respondent and add details regarding the effect of the alleged discrimination. The Request is being made at an early stage in the proceedings and no mediation has yet taken place. The respondent, while opposing the Request, has also already filed an amended Response to the proposed amended Application.
6I also grant the applicant’s Request to amend the remedy sought. The Tribunal has regularly granted such requests in past decisions. See, for example, Marino v. Compuware Corporation of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1390 and Loney v. Combusco Enterprises, 2011 HRTO 1050.
7These amendments are made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the remedies sought, and without prejudice to any position the respondent may wish to take regarding these allegations.
ORDER
8The Tribunal orders:
a. The applicant’s request to amend the Application, including the introduction of Schedules “A” and “B”, is granted;
b. The respondent’s name is amended to “2341164 Ontario Inc. o/a King-Mar Diagnostic Centre” and the style of cause is amended accordingly;
c. If the applicant wishes to file a Reply, she must do so within 14 days of this Interim Decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of September, 2016.
“Signed By”
Jennifer Khurana
Vice-chair