Z.G. v. York Region District School Board, 2016 HRTO 1601

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Z.G., as represented by his Litigation Guardian, C.G.

Applicant

-and-

York Region District School Board,

Niki Nicolaou, David Smilsky and Elizabeth De Boer

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: December 12, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1601

Indexed as: Z.G. v. York Region District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Z.G., as represented by his Litigation Guardian, C.G., Applicant

Roger Love, Counsel

York Region District School Board, Niki Nicolaou, David Smilsky, and Elizabeth De Boer, Respondents

Kathryn Bird, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application was filed on January 11, 2016. It alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, creed and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

request to amend

2On September 15, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, seeking to amend the Application. Essentially, he seeks to add reprisal as an allegation because he says the respondents’ school, where he is still a student, has been “over-monitoring” him as a result of him filing the Application. The Request contains paragraphs which describe the alleged reprisal and the effects on the applicant. The Request also seeks to amend the remedy sought by the applicant.

3The respondents consent to the Request.

4Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules 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”.

5In 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.

6I am satisfied that the applicant should be permitted to amend the Application as described in his Request. The amendments are linked to the original allegations, and the applicant filed his request well ahead of the hearing, which has not yet been scheduled. The respondents consent to the amendments and have already filed an amended Response, so I see no prejudice to them.

Order

7The applicant’s Request to amend the Application is granted.