HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lynne Blake
Applicant
-and-
The Corporation of the County of Simcoe
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Blake v. Simcoe (County)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Lynne Blake, Applicant
Parisa Nikfarjam, Counsel
The Corporation of the County of Simcoe, Respondent
Philip Wolfenden, 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 (the “Code”).
2This Interim Decision is in response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed by the applicant on January 29, 2016 seeking to amend her Application. The respondent provided written submissions responding to the RFOP on February 22, 2016.
3The applicant’s request to amend the Application is based on additional incidents alleged to have occurred subsequent to the filing of the Application. The applicant seeks to add the ground of age and allegations of reprisal or threat of reprisal. The applicant also requests amendments to the remedies sought to address the additional allegations. Finally, the applicant wishes to provide additional relevant facts to support the amended allegations.
4The respondent does not object to the request to amend the Application, but maintains that it does not agree with the substantive positions taken by the applicant.
5The hearing on the merits of this matter is scheduled for June 1 and 2, 2016.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
6Rule 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”.
7In 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.
8I am satisfied that the applicant should be permitted to amend the Application as described in the RFOP. The scheduled hearing date with regard to the merits of the Application is some months in the future. In my view there is adequate time for the respondent to address the new allegations raised by the applicant. In addition, the new allegations appear to be linked to the allegations outlined in the Application. Finally, the respondent does not object to the request to amend but maintains that its consent should not be taken as an agreement to the position of the applicant. The respondent has not argued that it will be prejudiced by the amendments, and I find that there is no apparent prejudice to the respondent in granting the Request.
order
9For the reasons set out above, The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted. The Application is amended to add the information contained in the January 29, 2016 RFOP.
b. The respondent may file an amended Response to respond to the amendment within 28 days from the date of this Interim Decision. If the applicant wishes to file a Reply to any amendment made to the Response, she must do so within 14 days of receiving an Amended Response from the respondent.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of March, 2016.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair