HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jennifer Cookson
Applicant
-and-
CpK Interior Products Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Cookson v. CpK Interior Products Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jennifer Cookson, Applicant
John Fraser, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.
2This Interim Decision is in response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed by the applicant on October 11, 2016 seeking to amend her Application. The respondent has not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has passed.
3The applicant requests to amend the remedies sought in the Application by adding $15,000 as monetary compensation, which she characterizes as general damages, for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect. The applicant maintains that the incidents have affected her financially and emotionally at home and at work and have contributed negatively to her disability.
4The hearing on the merits of this matter has not been scheduled.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
5Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended”.
6In deciding requests to amend applications 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 respondents. 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.
7The Tribunal has generally granted requests to amend remedies. See for example Phillip v. Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, 2016 HRTO 434; Guzman v. Senton Incorporated, 2011 HRTO 1480; and Marino v. Compuware Corporation of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1390. It has taken this approach because in most cases there is no prejudice to any other party in granting such requests. At the end of the day it is for the Tribunal to determine what the appropriate remedy is and may on its own initiative seek submissions of the parties with respect to remedies even if not sought by the applicant. Accordingly, the request to amend the remedies is granted.
order
8For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders that the applicant’s request to amend the Application by adding a remedy of $15,000 as monetary compensation for the injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect is granted.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of November, 2016.
“Signed By”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair