HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
A.K.
Applicant
-and-
Peel District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: A.K v. Peel District School Board
APPEARANCES
A.K., Applicant
Self-represented
Peel District School Board, Respondent
Roy C. Filion and Giovanna Di Sauro, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on July 30, 2015.
2Between October, 2015 and January, 2016, the applicant filed a number of Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her Application to add information.
3In an Interim Order dated June 13, 2016, the Tribunal granted the Request to Amend in part. The proposed amendments contained in the final request to amend, dated January 12, 2016, including those that relate to the applicant’s allegations that post-date the filing of the original Application on July 30, 2015, up to and including events that ended with the request filed on January 12, 2016 were granted.
4However, the Requests to add allegations relating to the actions or inactions of counsel during the course of these proceedings and all references to discussions held during the course of the mediation sessions and written communications made in furtherance of settlement were denied.
5On August 25, 2016 the applicant filed a Request to Expedite on the basis that the longer this Application’s process continues the greater negative impact this has on her health.
6The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing on November 14, 2016. The hearing of this Application is scheduled for February 16 and 17, 2017.
7On November 17, 2016, the applicant filed a further Request to Amend her application. She requests to add further allegations of discrimination by the respondent in the continuation of the back to work process and allegations of respondent’s continued failure to accommodate her disability.
8In addition, the applicant requests to add an allegation that she experienced discrimination when she was not contacted for an interview for a job posting at a school where she had originally taught.
9The respondent has consented to the Request to Amend to add all allegations set out in the applicant’s Request except for the allegations made with respect to the job posting which are set out in paragraph 20 of the Request to Amend.
10The respondent requests that it be provided sufficient time to file an Amended Response; that the dates for disclosure and filing deadlines be adjusted to allow the parties sufficient time to fulfill their disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure; and that the applicant be restricted from filing any further Requests to Amend without first seeking the consent of the Tribunal.
Request to Amend Application.
11Rule 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”.
12In determining whether requests to amend Applications will be granted, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondent. See 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.
13Having reviewed the Request and the submissions made by the parties in respect of that Request, the Tribunal grants, in part, the applicant’s Request to Amend her Application, dated November 17, 2016.
14The proposed amendments contained in the Request, dated November 17, 2016, except those contained in paragraph 20 of the Request shall be added to the Application.
15To allow the applicant to include these incidents with respect to the job that was posted in June 2016, would significantly expand the scope of these proceedings. If the Tribunal were to allow the amendments as outlined in paragraph 20 of the Request, the respondent would be required to locate a great amount of additional documentation and interview a number of new witnesses in order to prepare for the February 16, 2017 start of the hearing. As a result, the respondent would be prejudiced in its ability to properly prepare a response to those new allegations at this time.
Request to Expedite
16The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide for Applications to be dealt with in an expedited manner in urgent circumstances. Rule 21.1 provides that an applicant may request that the Tribunal deal with an application on an expedited basis in circumstances which require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute. Rule 21.2 requires an applicant seeking an expedited application to identify any urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application and the harm that would result if the request is denied.
17In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at para. 9, the Tribunal held that, for a request to expedite to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent, requiring the resolution of the human rights dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process.
18The applicant indicated that although her life was not in immediate danger, if the process were expedited, this would help to greatly reduce some of her stressors. She also indicate that knowing the date for the hearing would reduce the stress for her. In a letter that was attached to the Request to Expedite, a psychologist confirms that the applicant has indicated that her life is not in immediate risk of danger and concludes that “Given current symptoms, an expedited human rights tribunal hearing would likely reduce [the applicant’s] emotional distress at this time.”
19The respondents submit that the applicant’s increased stress level in waiting for a hearing date to be set through the normal course and the applicant’s current financial situation do not “not meet the high threshold required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence. In many cases before the Tribunal, the applicants are similarly situated…the circumstances identified by the Applicant are not sufficiently urgent that they may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application and/or that her requested remedies would be unavailable or moot.”
20Having reviewed the applicant’s requests to expedite, including the report from her psychologist, and the parties’ submissions, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence.
21The applicant’s submissions and the psychologist’s letter indicate that the fact that the applicant continues to be away from her work and that her salary payments from the respondent have recently ended are great stressors for her.
22The hearing of this Application is now schedule for February 16 and 17, 2017 and although the Tribunal understands the sense of urgency the applicant may feel in having the Application determined, a true urgency no longer remains.
23In addition, expediting the hearing to a date earlier, would not allow the parties to fairly and fully prepare for a hearing. This is particularly so now that further amendments to the Application have been granted and the respondent may need to amend the Response and seek further witness statements and documents in order to be able to fairly respond to the new allegations. The applicant has clearly indicated that she does not want to delay the commencement of the hearing any further.
24Accordingly, the Request to Expedite is denied.
ORDER
25The Tribunal makes the following orders:
The applicant’s request to expedite is denied.
The applicant’s Request to Amend her Application is granted in part. The Request to add the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Request filed on November 17, 2016 in denied.
If the respondent wishes to file an amended Response, it is directed to do so within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant will then have 10 days from the date the respondent serves and files an Amended Response to file an amended Reply.
The parties will exchange all documents that are arguably relevant to the new allegations on or before January 26, 2017.
On or before February 2, 2017, the parties shall serve and file all witness statements and documents they intend to rely on at the hearing.
The applicant shall not file any further Requests to Amend without first seeking the consent of the Tribunal.
Dated at Toronto, this 8^th^ day of December, 2016
“Signed By”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair