HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jan Janeczko
Applicant
-and-
The General W. Sikorski Polish Veterans Association, Boleslaw Dranski and Teresa Fajfer
Respondents
AND B E T W E E N:
Jan Janeczko
Applicant
-and-
The General W. Sikorski Polish Veterans Association, Boleslaw Dranski, Stan Nieradka and Walter Skomra
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Janeczko v. General W. Sikorski Polish Veterans Association
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jan Janeczko, Applicant
Mikaila Greene, Counsel
The General W. Sikorski Polish Veterans Association, Respondent
Stan Nieradka, Representative
Stan Nieradka, Respondent
Self-represented
Boleslaw Dranski, Respondent
Self-represented
Teresa Fajfer, Respondent
Self-represented
Walter Skomra, Respondent
Self-represented
BACKGROUND
1The applicant has filed two Applications.
2File 2015-21973-S is filed under section 49.5(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) and alleges the respondents, The General W. Sikorski Polish Veterans Association (“the Association”), Boleslaw Dranski and Teresa Fajfer have contravened a settlement reached with the applicant in respect of an earlier Application 2014-17069-I (“the breach of settlement Application”).
3File 2015-22053-I is filed under section 34 of Code alleging discrimination in membership in a vocational association on the basis of reprisal or threat of reprisal (“the reprisal Application”) against the Association, and Dranski as well as the respondents Stan Nieradka and Walter Skomra.
4The two files were consolidated by Interim Order dated December 17, 2015.
5A hearing of this Application is scheduled for February 28, and March 1, 2017.
Request to amend application
6On October 7, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Request) to Amend Application, 2015-22053-I, to add the allegations set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule A to the Request.
7These allegations were also included in the Application for File 2015-21973-S.
8The respondents have not responded to the Request, although the time for doing so has now passed.
9In determining 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 respondent. See, for example, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.
10Having considered these factors, the amendments are allowed. The amendments provide particulars of the reprisal allegations for incidents that allegedly occurred after the Minutes of Settlement that are the subject of File 2015-21973-S were signed.
11There appears to be no prejudice to the respondents in allowing the amendments. The respondents have been on notice of these allegations since Application 2015-21973-S was served on them in September 2015. The hearing of the Application is several months away and this allows the respondent sufficient time to properly prepare to respond to these allegations.
12The applicant’s request to amend the Application is allowed.
REQUEST TO REMOVE PERSONAL RESPONDENT
13The respondent, Teresa Fajfer, was named as a personal respondent in Application 2015-21973-S. She has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Request) to be removed as a named respondent.
14She submits that she is not a member of the organizational respondent and does not have any decision making powers in the organization and therefore, could not fulfill the alleged breach. She submits that for these reasons, she should not remain as a named respondent.
15The respondent opposes the Request. He submits that at this point, without an evidentiary record, Teresa Fajfer’s role in the alleged contravention of settlement and her role as president of an auxiliary that may be associated with the organizational respondent are yet unclear. In addition, he submits that he would experience prejudice if she were removed.
16At this early stage in the Application and prior to the exchange of arguably relevant documents, Teresa Fajfer’s request to be removed as a personal respondent is denied.
ORDERS
17The applicant’s request to amend the Application is allowed. The allegations set out in paragraph 6 of Appendix “A” of the RFOP filed on October 7, 2016 shall become part of Application 2015-22053-i.
18The respondents may file a further Response to the amended Application within 20 days of the date of this Interim Order.
19The respondent, Teresa Fajfer’s request to be removed as a personal respondent is denied.
20I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of November, 2016.
“Signed By”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair