Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Satish Soni Applicant
-and-
Hilton Suites Toronto/Markham Centre and Spa Respondents
-and-
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 333 Intervenor
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: March 3, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 287 Indexed as: Soni v. Hilton Suites Toronto/Markham Centre and Spa
Written Submissions
Satish Soni, Applicant Rahul Soni, Counsel
Hilton Suites Toronto/Markham Centre and Spa, Respondent Lorenzo Lisi, Counsel
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 333, Intervenor Laurie Kent, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). This matter is scheduled to be heard on the merits on April 6 and 7, 2016, in Toronto.
2This Interim Decisions addresses a number of outstanding issues.
Applicant's Request to amend the Application
3On September 9, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding seeking to amend the remedy sought in the Application, in the event that he is successful. The applicant seeks an order from the Tribunal to maintain his seniority and to be compensated for any past and future wage loss.
4The respondent opposes the Request to amend the Application on the basis that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to make any orders with respect to the applicant's seniority and that the applicant's future losses are speculative at best.
5Rule 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.
6In granting amendments the Tribunal usually considers the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the amendment and the absence of any apparent prejudice. In this case I find that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to grant the applicant's Request to amend the Application to seek the new remedies sought. That said, this does not mean that the applicant will ultimately be granted these remedies at the hearing. The Tribunal can address the jurisdictional issues raised by the respondent and the appropriateness of awarding any remedy sought during the course of the hearing.
Respondent's Request for Order
7On October 2, 2015, the respondent filed a Request for particulars of the applicant's medical records. On November 10, 2015, the Tribunal advised the respondent that its Request was premature and that if the issue remained outstanding that it could renew its request at the appropriate time. As of this date, the respondent has not filed another Request for order.
8If there remain any outstanding production issues then the parties are directed to file a Form 10, Request for an Order during Proceeding within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The time for the parties to file a Form 11, Response, to any such request shall be abridged from 14 to 7 days.
Intervenor's Request for Order
9On February 24, 2016, the Intervenor filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding to prevent the applicant from relying on various recordings.
10The Tribunal directs the applicant to file his Form 11, Response to the Intervenor's Request by no later than March 10, 2016. The respondent may also file a Form 11 by that date if it wishes to make submissions on the issue. The parties should be prepared to make submissions on this issue at the commencement of the hearing and should file any case law that they intend to rely on by no later than March 24, 2016.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of March, 2016.
"Signed by"
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair