HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jennifer Waumsley
Applicant
-and-
Wicker & Son Insurance Brokers Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Indexed as: Waumsley v. Wicker & Son Insurance Brokers Ltd.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jennifer Waumsley, Applicant
Subodh Singh Bharati, Counsel
Wicker & Son Insurance Brokers Ltd., Respondent
Elizabeth M. Traynor, Counsel
1This Interim Decision determines a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”), in which the respondent seeks to amend the Response.
2For the reasons that follow, the Request is granted.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
3In her Application the applicant alleges that her employment was terminated due to her health and as the result of medical visits and absences related to her disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
4The respondent denies the allegations and takes the position the applicant’s employment was terminated for poor performance.
5In her Reply the applicant refers to the termination meeting with her manager, which the applicant recorded, during which only her health was cited as the reason for her termination and no reference was made to concerns about her performance.
6Three weeks after the Reply was delivered, after retaining new counsel, the respondent made this Request. The respondent provided a proposed amended Response with the Request.
7The applicant opposes the Request. She suggests, among other things, the respondent is attempting to augment the record by adding particulars which might have been provided by the original counsel, the request was only made after the respondent reviewed the recording, and she will be prejudiced by delay caused by the need to provide a further Reply.
8The parties agreed to attempt mediation. The applicant filed a lengthy document responding to the amended Response in advance of the mediation held March 17, 2016. As the Application was not resolved at mediation, it is necessary to decide this issue.
REASONS
9Rule 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.
10In determining a request to amend a pleading, the Tribunal will consider a number of factors, including the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the requested amendment, the conduct of the party seeking the amendment, the prejudice to the other party, and the impact on the course of the hearing. See Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 535, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, and Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926.
11I have considered these factors and find that it is appropriate to grant the respondent’s Request to amend the Response. The Request was made very early in the processing of the Application after retention of new counsel. The proposed amendments also relate directly to the applicant’s narrative and the stated reasons for termination, which are at issue in this Application.
12As noted above the applicant has prepared a lengthy document responding to the amended Response. In the circumstances I am not satisfied the applicant has experienced any prejudice or that the proceedings will be delayed as a result of the Request.
ORDER
13The respondent’s Request to amend the Response is granted.
14If the applicant wishes to file an amended Reply, she may do so within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, failing which the Tribunal will accept the 62-paragraph document filed on March 14, 2016, as the amended Reply.
15The matter will be set down for two days of hearing.
16I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of April, 2016.
“Signed by”
Jennifer Khurana
Vice-chair